--- Em sex, 16/12/11, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> De: Bruce Dubbs
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS7.0
> Para: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Data: Sexta-feira, 16 de Dezembro de 2011, 1:31
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Try the scripts below. Change the make script to
>
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 06/01/2012 04:49, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> I'm sure whatever you choose to do is perfectly fine for your needs, but
>> objecting to parameter substitution as being more complicated than piping to
>> head and then cut is silly. It's simple pattern substitution like you
Le 06/01/2012 04:49, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I'm sure whatever you choose to do is perfectly fine for your needs, but
> objecting to parameter substitution as being more complicated than piping to
> head and then cut is silly. It's simple pattern substitution like you do with
> sed in the rest
On Jan 5, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> That's too complicated. The idea is to keep it as simple as possible.
I'm sure whatever you choose to do is perfectly fine for your needs, but
objecting to parameter substitution as being more complicated than piping to
head and then cut is sill
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Sure, it's a requirement, but if it isn't there, then the check for
>> libc fails. Right now, the resources needed are head, cut, echo,
>> readlink, and cat; other than the resources being directly tested.
>>
>> I just do
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Sure, it's a requirement, but if it isn't there, then the check for libc
> fails. Right now, the resources needed are head, cut, echo, readlink,
> and cat; other than the resources being directly tested.
>
> I just don't want to see a cascading
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 03:56:39PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> I think that idea is fine, but wonder about the use of awk. It may not
> >> be available. Perhaps:
> >>
> >> ldd /bin/ls | grep '/libc.*so'
> >>
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:56:39 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think that idea is fine, but wonder about the use of awk. It may not
> be available.
The book requires awk.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the ab
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 03:56:39PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I think that idea is fine, but wonder about the use of awk. It may not
>> be available. Perhaps:
>>
>> ldd /bin/ls | grep '/libc.*so'
>>
>> I don't think stripping the cruft is really necessary.
>>
>> LFS 32-bit:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 03:56:39PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I think that idea is fine, but wonder about the use of awk. It may not
> be available. Perhaps:
>
> ldd /bin/ls | grep '/libc.*so'
>
> I don't think stripping the cruft is really necessary.
>
> LFS 32-bit: libc.so.6 => /lib/li
Le 29/12/2011 22:56, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Sorry, this won't thread properly -- but I deleted the original before I
>> realized I wanted to reply, so now I have to copy from the archives, and
>> the archives don't have the right message-ids. :-/
>>
>> Matthew Burgess wrot
Le 29/12/2011 22:53, Matt Burgess a écrit :
> On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 13:39 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> ldd /bin/ls | awk '/libc\.so/ {print $3;}'
> That's really neat. Works on a Fedora 64-bit host and an up to date
> lfs-trunk build as well. I'll add it to the book in a few days in case
> so
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Sorry, this won't thread properly -- but I deleted the original before I
> realized I wanted to reply, so now I have to copy from the archives, and
> the archives don't have the right message-ids. :-/
>
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 15:01 +0100, Pierre L
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 13:39 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> ldd /bin/ls | awk '/libc\.so/ {print $3;}'
That's really neat. Works on a Fedora 64-bit host and an up to date
lfs-trunk build as well. I'll add it to the book in a few days in case
someone manages to find a distro that this breaks on or
Sorry, this won't thread properly -- but I deleted the original before I
realized I wanted to reply, so now I have to copy from the archives, and
the archives don't have the right message-ids. :-/
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 15:01 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote:
>
> > I meant `c
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 15:01 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> I meant `current trunk' too. The change in version 3537 is not enough.
> Here is what I have done (not checked on any other system than Debian,
> but I do not see a reason why it would not work):
> # if [ -f /lib/libc.so.6 ]; then
> #
Le 28/12/2011 13:27, Matt Burgess a écrit :
> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 13:09 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote:
>
>> So, `version-check.sh' outputs (among other things...):
>> version-check.sh: line 22: /lib/libc.so.6: No such file or directory
>>
>> Actually, current jhalfs does not find it either.
> Curr
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 13:09 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> So, `version-check.sh' outputs (among other things...):
> version-check.sh: line 22: /lib/libc.so.6: No such file or directory
>
> Actually, current jhalfs does not find it either.
Current jhalfs does find it on at least Fedora, but by
Hello,
I have subscribed this list recently, so let me introduce myself:
My name is Pierre Labastie. I have been practicing linux system building
as a hobby for quite a while: I think my first attempts (with Linux From
Scratch) were undertaken in 2003. Time passing, I switched to DIY linux,
to whi
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> On 17-12-2011 01:06, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> A simple alternative would be to just put the compilation test first.
>> When we first wrote the script, we didn't have the compilation test at
>> all, so when it was added, it was put at the end.
>>
>>-- Bruce
>
> I lik
On 17-12-2011 01:06, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> A simple alternative would be to just put the compilation test first.
> When we first wrote the script, we didn't have the compilation test at
> all, so when it was added, it was put at the end.
>
>-- Bruce
I liked this solution.
Thanks, Bruce.
And
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I feel it is misleading having a statement "compilation OK" and at
> the same time "some requirements not satisfied". Perhaps, instead of
> any major changes in the script, a message could be given (or the
> previous messages could be changed) to avoid the understandi
Thanks for this post, Bruce.
There are two disks sda and sdb in my system, with partitions sda1 for LFS7.0
and sdb1 for Ubuntu 11.10. This is to justify why it will take some time until
I will give you a return about the install script you kindly mailed me.
That said, I will address the other p
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> What it says is "Compilation OK", not that all packages are OK. It's
>> supposed to be a short script to allow the user to visually check the
>> actual installed packages. That's part of the learning process.
>
> Yes, but is it really difficult to drop "Compilatio
--- Em qui, 15/12/11, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> > I am very impressed with the great improvements in LFS7.0!
> >
> > Very welcomed, the wget-list with corresponding md5sums, and many
> > other additions/editions.
> >
> > Two things happened to me since 6.4:
> >
> > 1. Ho
--- Em qui, 15/12/11, Chris Staub escreveu:
> On 12/15/2011 12:54 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
...
> > 1. Host System Requirements: version-check.sh gives "... OK", even
> >when packages are missing or wrong. Perhaps I did not understand, but
> >shouldn't it fail.
> >
> You have to loo
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I am very impressed with the great improvements in LFS7.0!
>
> Very welcomed, the wget-list with corresponding md5sums, and many
> other additions/editions.
>
> Two things happened to me since 6.4:
>
> 1. Host System Requirements: version-check.sh gives "... OK", ev
On 12/15/2011 12:54 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I am very impressed with the great improvements in LFS7.0!
>
> Very welcomed, the wget-list with corresponding md5sums, and many other
> additions/editions.
>
> Two things happened to me since 6.4:
>
> 1. Host System Requirements: version-
I am very impressed with the great improvements in LFS7.0!
Very welcomed, the wget-list with corresponding md5sums, and many other
additions/editions.
Two things happened to me since 6.4:
1. Host System Requirements: version-check.sh gives "... OK", even when
packages are missing or wrong.
29 matches
Mail list logo
