On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 04:48:34PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I apologize for the lack of proper in-reply-to headers for this, I
> don't normally read lfs-dev mailing list.
>
> Ken Moffit wrote at Thu May 31 17:18:25 MDT 2012:
[wearing my pedant's hat ]
s/fi/fa/ : in my case, the s
Hi,
I apologize for the lack of proper in-reply-to headers for this, I
don't normally read lfs-dev mailing list.
Ken Moffit wrote at Thu May 31 17:18:25 MDT 2012:
>> And:
>>
>> https://github.com/nenolod/pkgconf
>>
>
> Under development, but no releases and only a zip file for casual
> browsers
Markku Pesonen wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Might be worth a shot. (If you have a system to test it on; don't go
>> build something just for this.) OTOH that sed, or an equivalent, might
>> have already been applied to pkg-config, or maybe they pulled in a newer
>> version of popt.
>
> Actua
On 06/02/2012 05:19 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/25/12 8:55 AM, Armin K. wrote:
>> I want to add that I've experimented with "the /usr merge" since I use
>> one partition for everything.
>
> I don't believe anyone commented on this part, but I'm curious. What did
> you do exactly to achieve "t
On 5/25/12 8:55 AM, Armin K. wrote:
> I want to add that I've experimented with "the /usr merge" since I use
> one partition for everything.
I don't believe anyone commented on this part, but I'm curious. What did
you do exactly to achieve "the /usr merge"? For my own experiments in
LightCube I'
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Might be worth a shot. (If you have a system to test it on; don't go
> build something just for this.) OTOH that sed, or an equivalent, might
> have already been applied to pkg-config, or maybe they pulled in a newer
> version of popt.
Actually they dropped popt completely
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point
>>> anyone who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown
>>> that they're integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we
>>> should move away from it.
>> L
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point anyone
>> who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown that they're
>> integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we should move away from
>> it.
>
> Let's see what they say whe
Andrew Benton wrote:
> It seems to me that we should remove udev from LFS and point anyone
> who needs it at the systemd page in BLFS. They've shown that they're
> integrating udev more tightly with systemd, we should move away from
> it.
Let's see what they say when I post the configure.ac / Mak
On 06/01/2012 01:13 PM, Armin K. wrote:
[putolin]
> Ah yes ... Some apps use those for loading modules. For example,
> cyrus-sasl is one of those, but I've patched it not to use them, but the
> .so ones directly. Among those is mpg123 which also uses .la files by
> default but they can be overwri
On 06/01/2012 06:59 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> That may be more recent, but Ubuntu 7.04 (32 bit) has 248 .la files and
>> Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) has 217 .la files.
>>
> On this 32-bit netbook (where I still haven't had time to even tr
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> That may be more recent, but Ubuntu 7.04 (32 bit) has 248 .la files and
> Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) has 217 .la files.
>
On this 32-bit netbook (where I still haven't had time to even try
building my own kernel, much less sort out the
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
> >
> > Removal process is the following: find /usr/lib /lib -name *.la -delete
> > Nothing else. I'll try 64bit system since I have 64bit capable hardware
> > now ... But I tell you, every distribution does not have a
Armin K. wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 05:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>>> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
>>> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
>>> single of them on my machine and
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:05:18AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Perhaps:
>>
>> # Generated by libtool
>> # and customized by LFS
>>
> That sounds good enough.
>>> That is good enough to get past that first problem (probably better
>>> if Custom file was replaced by something t
On 06/01/2012 05:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>
>> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
>> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
>> single of them on my machine and yet everything works perfectly ... So
>> tell me, have you tr
On 06/01/2012 05:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>>
>> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
>> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
>> single of them on my machine and yet everything work
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:05:18AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Perhaps:
>
> # Generated by libtool
> # and customized by LFS
>
That sounds good enough.
> > That is good enough to get past that first problem (probably better
> > if Custom file was replaced by something to clarify it's not rea
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:04:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>
> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
> single of them on my machine and yet everything works perfectly ... So
> tell me, have you tried
Armin K. wrote:
> oh man, I can't believe you still use libtool files for compiling
> programs. Every sane distro has removed them ... I haven't got any
> single of them on my machine and yet everything works perfectly ... So
> tell me, have you tried NOT to install that file? libtool will fall
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:13:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
> func_lalib_unsafe_p ()
> {
> lalib_p=no
> if test -f "$1" && test -r "$1" && exec 5<&0 <"$1"; then
> for lalib_p_l in 1 2 3 4
> do
> read lalib_p_line
>
On 06/01/2012 04:33 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:13:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> libtool: link: `/usr/lib64/libudev.la' is not a valid libtool
>>> archive
>>
>> libtool is a (long) shell script generated with configure. I found that
>> phrase in
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:13:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > libtool: link: `/usr/lib64/libudev.la' is not a valid libtool
> > archive
>
> libtool is a (long) shell script generated with configure. I found that
> phrase in 10 different places. Can you instrument it an
On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:22:00 +0100
Andrew Benton wrote:
> When they merged udev and systemd they said that it'd be possible to
> install just udev without systemd but with the very first merged
> release it is impossible to install udev without all of systemd's
> dependencies...it makes me wonder
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/31/12 6:17 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> It still amazes me that pkg-config requires any other external library.
>> glib1 wasn't bad since it was shipped alongside it and had no other
>> deps, fairly lightweight. But switching to glib2 was just ridiculous.
>> All that
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:58:00 +0100 Bruce Dubbs
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Try this diff for configure.ac.
>> It helps. I can get through configure Ok, but I can't see a way to
>> get through make without dbus.
>
> Did you try in a Chapter 6 environment? I can'
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:19:47AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> Forgot to check what it installed : the libudev's in /lib look ok,
>> but the .pc says libdir=/usr/lib but again only has the .so.1
>> symlink to ../../lib/libudev.so.1.0.0. I assume a .so will also be
>> needed, s
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:19:47AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Forgot to check what it installed : the libudev's in /lib look ok,
> but the .pc says libdir=/usr/lib but again only has the .so.1
> symlink to ../../lib/libudev.so.1.0.0. I assume a .so will also be
> needed, so I've created one.
>
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:48:47PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:32:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > > Is it worth me testing that this does work for xorg/Mesa ? Or are
> > > you concentrating on the patches to separate it ?
> >
> > Not sure.
On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:49:25 +0100
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Check these out:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pkgconfiglite/
That looks good. It installs /usr/share/aclocal/pkg.m4 which we need.
"This is pkg-config-lite-0.26-1, based on pkg-config-0.26.
pkg-config-lite is based on pkg-confi
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:49:36PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/31/12 6:17 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > It still amazes me that pkg-config requires any other external library.
> > glib1 wasn't bad since it was shipped alongside it and had no other
> > deps, fairly lightweight. But switchi
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:08:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The idea of adding pkg-config 0.25 to LFS is a good suggestion. What do
>> others think? We might want to add it to Chapter 6 so we don't have to
>> do a workaround for glib in BLFS.
> Adding 0.25 sounds good.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/31/12 6:17 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> It still amazes me that pkg-config requires any other external library.
>> glib1 wasn't bad since it was shipped alongside it and had no other
>> deps, fairly lightweight. But switching to glib2 was just ridiculous.
>> All that
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:08:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> The idea of adding pkg-config 0.25 to LFS is a good suggestion. What do
> others think? We might want to add it to Chapter 6 so we don't have to
> do a workaround for glib in BLFS.
>
>-- Bruce
Adding 0.25 sounds good. But
On 5/31/12 6:17 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> It still amazes me that pkg-config requires any other external library.
> glib1 wasn't bad since it was shipped alongside it and had no other
> deps, fairly lightweight. But switching to glib2 was just ridiculous.
> All that pkg-config is doing is parsin
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:32:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > Is it worth me testing that this does work for xorg/Mesa ? Or are
> > you concentrating on the patches to separate it ?
>
> Not sure. I've spent most of the day looking at configure.ac and can't
> seem to g
s...@slohj.org wrote:
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:51 pm
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:58:00 +0100
>&g
On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:03:17 +0100
wrote:
> I've created a patch to systemd-183/{Makefile.am,configure.ac}.
>
> No dbus, pam, tcp-wrappers. Only kmod and blkid needed.
>
> It strips out everything but libudev, udevadmin, and udevd ( now called
> that again), rules, helpers, and tests.
>
> lib
On 06/01/2012 12:08 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/31/12 6:01 PM, Armin K. wrote:
>> pkg-config 0.26 uses glib2 and does not ship glib1 anymore. And since
>> LFS/BLFS tends to use latest stuff, glib 2.32 requires python for gdbus
>> stuff and libffi for some other stuff ... Do note that pkg-conf
On 5/31/12 6:10 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:38:21 +0100
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> Since when does glib require Python?
>
> I think Python's been a required dep since glib-2.32. It may be
> possible to build glib without python but it will need more than
> configure switch
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:38:21 +0100
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Since when does glib require Python?
I think Python's been a required dep since glib-2.32. It may be
possible to build glib without python but it will need more than
configure switches.
> Are you using glib2? IIRC,
> pkg-config up unt
Armin K. wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 11:38 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> On 5/31/12 5:32 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
pkk-config
glib (required)
>> Since when does glib require Python? Are you using glib2? IIRC,
>> pkg-config up until recently shipped with glib1 sources and built that
>> in i
On 5/31/12 6:01 PM, Armin K. wrote:
> pkg-config 0.26 uses glib2 and does not ship glib1 anymore. And since
> LFS/BLFS tends to use latest stuff, glib 2.32 requires python for gdbus
> stuff and libffi for some other stuff ... Do note that pkg-config 0.25
> can be still built flawlessly. It can be i
Original Message
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report
From: Bruce Dubbs
Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:51 pm
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:58:00 +0100
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Try this diff for config
On 05/31/2012 11:38 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/31/12 5:32 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> pkk-config
>>> glib (required)
>
> Since when does glib require Python? Are you using glib2? IIRC,
> pkg-config up until recently shipped with glib1 sources and built that
> in its own build system. I
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:51:28 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Did you try in a Chapter 6 environment? I can't get it to work without
> pkg-config.
No, I think your make.sh is a better bet for an LFS Chapter 6 build.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:58:00 +0100
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Try this diff for configure.ac.
>
> It helps. I can get through configure Ok, but I can't see a way to get
> through make without dbus.
Did you try in a Chapter 6 environment? I can't get it to work without
pk
On 5/31/12 5:32 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
>> pkk-config
>> glib (required)
Since when does glib require Python? Are you using glib2? IIRC,
pkg-config up until recently shipped with glib1 sources and built that
in its own build system. In fact pkg-config's page says it uses
glib-1.2.10 - that
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:20:25 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Well Dan, I've run into a problem with autoconf that I can't figure out
> how to solve. configure.ac has several lines like:
>
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES(KMOD, [libkmod >= 5])
>
> Now that's a reasonable check, but requires cfg.m4 which is inst
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:10:44PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> Failed to link:
>>>
>>> CC cdrom_id
>>> CC ata_id
>>> CC accelerometer
>>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -ludev
>>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>>> LD udevd failed
>>> root in chroot
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:58:00 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Try this diff for configure.ac.
It helps. I can get through configure Ok, but I can't see a way to get
through make without dbus.
Andy
udev-only.patch
Description: Binary data
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:35:15PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> It gets through configure, but I haven't started to look at make yet.
>
> In any case, I'm not sure how to handle this in Chapter 6 yet.
> autoreconf requires pkg-config and we don't have that in LFS.
>
> At a
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Congratulations, you're off and running with the autotools!
Well Dan, I've run into a problem with autoconf that I can't figure out
how to solve. configure.ac has several lines like:
PKG_CHECK_MODULES(KMOD, [libkmod >= 5])
Now that's a reasonable check, but requires cf
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:10:44PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Failed to link:
> >
> > CC cdrom_id
> > CC ata_id
> > CC accelerometer
> > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -ludev
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> > LD udevd failed
> > root in chroot /building/syst
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
>>> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
>>> the way, but I think configure should run.
>>
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:49:05PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Now use systemd-lfs-2.patch
>>
>> The build remains:
>>
>>tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
>>cd systemd-183
>>patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs-2.patch
>>sh make.sh
>>sh install.sh
>>
>
> Failed to link:
On 5/31/12, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
>> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
>> the way, but I think configure should run.
>
> Withthis pat
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:49:05PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Now use systemd-lfs-2.patch
>
> The build remains:
>
>tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
>cd systemd-183
>patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs-2.patch
>sh make.sh
>sh install.sh
>
Failed to link:
CC cdrom_id
CC ata_id
CC ac
Andrew Benton wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
the way, but I think configure should run.
Withthis patch automake fails with:
M
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
> the way, but I think configure should run.
Withthis patch automake fails with:
Makefile.am:1447: Ca
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:05:05AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
>> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
>> the way, but I think configure should run.
>>
> Thanks. I'll take a loo
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:05:05AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
> the way, but I think configure should run.
>
Thanks. I'll take a look later.
> Allow me t
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:58:08 +0100
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> Actually, for some of us they *are* scary. I thought I was making
>> some progress (persuaded autoreconf to complete without errors using
>> the attached -A.patch), but then confi
On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:58:08 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Actually, for some of us they *are* scary. I thought I was making
> some progress (persuaded autoreconf to complete without errors using
> the attached -A.patch), but then configure went into an infinite
> loop spewing out '=no' lines. Tha
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
> wrote:
>> On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev. On a
>>> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries are installed,
>>> I as able to build an
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:50:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> The standard seems to be:
>>
>> /lib/libudev.so.0.13.1
>
> libudev.so.1.0.0 for 183
OK
>> /lib/libudev.so.0 -> libudev.so.0.13.1
>> /usr/lib/libudev.so -> ../../lib/libudev.so.0.13.1
>> /u
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 07:21:27PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:
>
> Alright ... Here's one crazy idea. I am unable to follow your discussion
> and build system development, but you can try the following:
>
> 1. Extract udev-182 (last standalone version)
> 2. Merge source files changes from 183 into th
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:50:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:55:40PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> >> I'll try to create a dynamic udev library in my script.
>
> OK, I was successful. It was a bit tricky. First, the order of what is
> on the co
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:12:10PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:33 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
> >
> > Have any of you guys considered actually making patches and sending
> > them upstream? The autotools are not that sca
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:55:40PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'll try to create a dynamic udev library in my script.
OK, I was successful. It was a bit tricky. First, the order of what is
on the command line to link is significant.
Second, many of the programs are compil
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:55:40PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > The bad: I cannot compile xf86-input-evdev, it needs libudev.pc or
> > flags pointing it to libudev. For me, this is a showstopper.
>
> I went to the source of xf86-input-evdev-2.6.0 and did:
>
>grep -
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42:41PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> I rebooted and udev from systemd seems to work with the patch. I
>> updated the patch (same location, timestamp 29-May-2012 22:28) because I
>> forgot to create /lib/udev/devices/{null,pt
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:33 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
> wrote:
> > On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev. On a
> >> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries ar
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42:41PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I rebooted and udev from systemd seems to work with the patch. I
> updated the patch (same location, timestamp 29-May-2012 22:28) because I
> forgot to create /lib/udev/devices/{null,pts}. The latest patch n
Armin K. wrote:
> Alright ... Here's one crazy idea. I am unable to follow your discussion
> and build system development, but you can try the following:
>
> 1. Extract udev-182 (last standalone version)
> 2. Merge source files changes from 183 into that tree.
> 3. Package pure udev 183 tarball
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:36:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>>
You seem to be making good progress here.
>>> Try the attached patch.
>>>
>>> tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
>>> cd systemd-183
>>> patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs.patch
On 05/30/2012 07:12 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:36:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>>
You seem to be making good progress here.
>>>
>>> Try the attached patch.
>>>
>>> tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
>>> cd systemd-183
>>> patch -
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:36:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> >> You seem to be making good progress here.
> >
> > Try the attached patch.
> >
> > tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
> > cd systemd-183
> > patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs.patch
> > sh make.s
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
wrote:
> On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev. On a
>> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries are installed,
>> I as able to build and looked at the executables a
On Tue, 29 May 2012 23:42:41 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Otherwise I think the patch is good. If someone (Matt?) can test and
> confirm that it works, I'll put it in the book.
Sure, I'll try to kick off a test build tonight, once I've committed my
pending patches.
Thanks to everyone for the
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> You seem to be making good progress here.
>>
>> Try the attached patch.
>>
>> tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
>> cd systemd-183
>> patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs.patch
>> sh make.sh
>> sh install.sh > install.log
>>
>> It ran with only
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I got rid of the systemd-sysctl problem by deleting
> /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules.
...Arrrg, forgot to reread the thread to the end. :-)
(Yeah, we'll need to pull in the write_{net,cd}_rules stuff from either
udev-182, or -- probably better since it'll be maintained
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules:46
We probably need to delete this file. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> You seem to be making good progress here.
>
> Try the attached patch.
>
> tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
> cd systemd-183
> patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs.patch
> sh make.sh
> sh install.sh > install.log
>
> It ran with only one minor warning (easily fix
Armin K. wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 02:48 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> It does not write anything to /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
>> (or anywhere else AFAICT).
> It does not write by default in /etc/udev/rules.d ... They have to be
> moved manualy from /run/udev, wh
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 04:43:43PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > You seem to be making good progress here. I've only managed to do
> > a DESTDIR install for the accelerometer ... v4l_id batch of programs
> > and for libudev.* : Haven't managed to build udevadm or
> > systemd
On 05/30/2012 02:48 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> It does not write anything to /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> (or anywhere else AFAICT).
>
> -- Bruce
It does not write by default in /etc/udev/rules.d ... They have to be
moved manualy from /run/udev, where they
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Continuing to section 7.2 I ran into a problem pretty quickly:
>
> root:/# echo /sys/class/net/*
> /sys/class/net/eth0 /sys/class/net/lo /sys/class/net/sit0
> /sys/class/net/tunl0
>
> root:/# INTERFACE=/sys/class/net/eth0 udevadm test --action=add
> /sys/class/net/eth0
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> You seem to be making good progress here.
>
> Try the attached patch.
>
> tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
> cd systemd-183
> patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs.patch
> sh make.sh
> sh install.sh > install.log
>
> It ran with only one minor warning (easily fix
Ken Moffat wrote:
You seem to be making good progress here.
Try the attached patch.
tar -xf systemd-183.tar.xz
cd systemd-183
patch -Np1 -i ../systemd-lfs.patch
sh make.sh
sh install.sh > install.log
It ran with only one minor warning (easily fixed) in install.sh from the
lfs chapter 6 en
Ken Moffat wrote:
> You seem to be making good progress here. I've only managed to do
> a DESTDIR install for the accelerometer ... v4l_id batch of programs
> and for libudev.* : Haven't managed to build udevadm or
> systemd-udevd without DBUS at the moment. I'll take a look at your
> details la
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 03:01:57PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 05:07:17PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >>
> >>> 8. The following have gone:
> >>> rule_generator.functions
> >>> write_cd_rules
> >>> write_net_rules
> >> I noticed th
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 05:07:17PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> 8. The following have gone:
>>> rule_generator.functions
>>> write_cd_rules
>>> write_net_rules
>> I noticed that too, but they are all ascii.
>> /lib/udev/rules.d/75-cd-aliases-generator.r
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 05:07:17PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > 8. The following have gone:
> > rule_generator.functions
> > write_cd_rules
> > write_net_rules
>
> I noticed that too, but they are all ascii.
> /lib/udev/rules.d/75-cd-aliases-generator.rules reverences
> w
Ken Moffat wrote:
> libudev.la has installed=no - I'm not sure exactly how it gets
> installed, but we probably need to do the same because the following
> are wrapper scripts for libtool files of the same name in .libs and
> these will definitely all need to be correctly installed :
>
> accele
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:38:37PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> One bright note : although it uses a lot of libtool-foo in the
> regular install, at the end of 'make' all the udev programs appear to
> be ready for a conventional install, and libudev.la appears as if it
> might be in a similar sta
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 05:07:17PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > For BLFS users who need gudev or any of the other parts that LFS
> > can do without, it looks nastier. Do-able, but finding someone to
> > build all the deps and then document how to install the other parts
>
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 8. The following have gone:
> rule_generator.functions
> write_cd_rules
> write_net_rules
I noticed that too, but they are all ascii.
/lib/udev/rules.d/75-cd-aliases-generator.rules reverences
write_cd_rules, but there seems to be no similar function in -183.
> man8/scsi_id
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:52:38PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Continuing this thread.
>
> I built a current SVN and stopped at udev. Trying to run systemd
> configure is a problem.
>
> 1. It wants intltool
> 2. It wants intltool's dependency XML::Parser
> 3. It wants libpcap2 and implicitly
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev. On a
>> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries are installed,
>> I as able to build and looked at the executables and libraries. AFAIK,
>> the only
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
