DJ Lucas wrote:
> Hopefully I just had a typo someplace that had a really bad
> effect. I'll let you know soon...I want it all tested. Looks like both
> patches are required, but after the mess I had today, I'm verifying one
> additional time. I just installed man-pages...starting glibc once
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> No patches. Bad testing. I built glibc 3 times last night, but I guess
>> I did not test that one with a full rebuild.
>>
>>
> Okay... Yes I did, but I applied the patch before running the existing
> script. Also, glibc was installed already.
DJ Lucas wrote:
> No patches. Bad testing. I built glibc 3 times last night, but I guess
> I did not test that one with a full rebuild.
>
Okay... Yes I did, but I applied the patch before running the existing
script. Also, glibc was installed already. I don't think the
iconv-test fix is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>
>>> Still there in latest snapshot:
>>>
>>> [snip known errors]
>>>
>>>
>> And after applying the copy that Greg suggested:
>>
>> [snip the math error]
>>
>> The copy command should be:
>> cp -v ../glibc-2.8-20080929
DJ Lucas wrote:
> At a later date, I'd like to make the patch add the copy command, and
> skip annexc test completely since it's been broken for so long.
I'd prefer to see the error and have the book comment on it. That way, if
someone uses the instructions for a later version that actually f
DJ Lucas wrote:
> At a later date, I'd like to make the patch add the copy command, and
> skip annexc test completely since it's been broken for so long.
That doesn't help me commit the Glibc update right now. If we
leave the inconv and math errors, we need to document them.
I sent a mail to th
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> ...and I've yet to try the full method used by Greg
>> to get rid of the Glibc-2.8 iconv and math errors, but so far I'm not
>> seeing any issues.
>>
>>
> Still there in latest snapshot:
>
> root:/sources/glibc-2.8-20080929# grep Error ../glib
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>
>>> Still there in latest snapshot:
>>>
>>> root:/sources/glibc-2.8-20080929# grep Error
>>> ../glibc-20080929-build-log
>>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata/bug-iconv6.out] Error 1
>>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/iconvda
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Still there in latest snapshot:
>>
>> [snip known errors]
>>
> And after applying the copy that Greg suggested:
>
> [snip the math error]
>
> The copy command should be:
> cp -v ../glibc-2.8-20080929/iconvdata/gconv-modules iconvdata
> and be inserted betw
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Still there in latest snapshot:
>>
>> root:/sources/glibc-2.8-20080929# grep Error ../glibc-20080929-build-log
>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata/bug-iconv6.out] Error 1
>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata/tst-iconv7.out] Error 1
>>
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Still there in latest snapshot:
>
> root:/sources/glibc-2.8-20080929# grep Error ../glibc-20080929-build-log
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata/bug-iconv6.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata/tst-iconv7.out] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [iconvdata/test
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> ...and I've yet to try the full method used by Greg
> to get rid of the Glibc-2.8 iconv and math errors, but so far I'm not
> seeing any issues.
>
Still there in latest snapshot:
root:/sources/glibc-2.8-20080929# grep Error ../glibc-20080929-build-log
make[2]: *** [/sour
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I meant LFS specific, in so far that the system can reproduce itself.
> We are going to break BLFS to some extent. This is unavoidable. I
> think we are on the same page WRT to what needs to be done. If you want
> to go ahead and take the lead, go ahead and commit whatever
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>
>>> Sure, if you've had time to test all the changes. I was going through a
>>> manual build to clear up a couple of left over items (gcc fixincludes,
>>> man-db, new dependencies for Appendix C, etc.)
>>>
>
> Well, I've not checked much of B
DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Sure, if you've had time to test all the changes. I was going through a
>> manual build to clear up a couple of left over items (gcc fixincludes,
>> man-db, new dependencies for Appendix C, etc.)
Well, I've not checked much of BLFS, but we can cross that bridge
when we get t
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is mostly to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
>>
>> I've got many commits ready to go and I didn't want us to
>> be conflicting with one another. Do you want me to do the
>> updates. I've got package updates and textual updates as
>>
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is mostly to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
>
> I've got many commits ready to go and I didn't want us to
> be conflicting with one another. Do you want me to do the
> updates. I've got package updates and textual updates as
> well, all ready to go.
>
> Let
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> [snip entire message]
In case anyone is interested, here is the list of LFS packages
I used in my most recent build. There are some packages which
have updates beyond what DJ's experimental book has. There's
more info here than is needed, but I'm just cut-pasting my
/etc/lf
Hi all,
This is mostly to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
I've got many commits ready to go and I didn't want us to
be conflicting with one another. Do you want me to do the
updates. I've got package updates and textual updates as
well, all ready to go.
Let me know.
However, I've got a question
19 matches
Mail list logo
