M.Canales.es wrote:
The method used is not very elegant. That dummy sect2 are hugly in both the
XML and the HTML output code (the output look is good).
Yeah I know. :/
I think that will be best to use a similar method that the one used in CLFS.
That will allow us to insert/remove paras or scr
El Martes, 2 de Mayo de 2006 02:01, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> Also, here's an svn diff of the source files so you can see what I did
> with the XIncludes. Manuel is this good enough, or do you have a better
> idea?
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/sanity-checks.diff
The method used is
Archaic wrote:
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:01:28PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
OK, here's a second go at it:
Looks good. I see one thing, though:
"The most likely reason is that something went wrong with the specs file
amendment above."
s/above// because it isn't relevant on the gcc page.
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:01:28PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> OK, here's a second go at it:
Looks good. I see one thing, though:
"The most likely reason is that something went wrong with the specs file
amendment above."
s/above// because it isn't relevant on the gcc page.
--
Archaic
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Trying to close this ticket:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1768
OK, here's a second go at it:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/html-lfs-trunk/chapter06/readjusting.html
and
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/html-lfs-trunk/chapter06/gcc.html
Als
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:32:50PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> I'm sure we could do the XInclude on the majority of text and commands
> for that section, but in the two instances where the output differs,
> just plug in the output for that specific section. Which page would
> hold the so
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:12:50PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Personally, I would prefer another solution.
Drop the 2nd instance of the crt tests and drop the SEARCH tests.
Otherwise, the output must be wrestled into conforming to layout
requirements.
Sorry to be indecisive
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:23:10PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> I still need to go over it a few more times before I understand some of
> the intricacies of what's happening there.
Sounds good. I'd like to read what you come up with as I don't know,
either.
--
Archaic
Want control, educa
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:55:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
As I already said, I didn't include it on the readjusting page because I
didn't want to confuse the reader with perhaps unexpected occurrences of
'/tools'.
Unexpected? Please explain. /tools should either be in th
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:12:50PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Personally, I would prefer another solution.
Drop the 2nd instance of the crt tests and drop the SEARCH tests.
Otherwise, the output must be wrestled into conforming to layout
requirements.
--
Archaic
Want control, education,
Archaic wrote:
And don't overlook the changes to the 2 greps. Regardless of anything
else this thread produces, those changes must be made to fix the current
wrapping problem.
Yes, thanks. I thought of doing something like what you suggested, but
wasn't sure if it was really appropriate. Bein
And don't overlook the changes to the 2 greps. Regardless of anything
else this thread produces, those changes must be made to fix the current
wrapping problem.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.or
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:55:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> As I already said, I didn't include it on the readjusting page because I
> didn't want to confuse the reader with perhaps unexpected occurrences of
> '/tools'.
Unexpected? Please explain. /tools should either be in the output
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:00:09PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Also, keep in mind that the location of the startfiles likewise differs
> when running the tests at those two points.
Yes, as I pointed out. I made an assumption on the SEARCH grep since I
didn't know, but I explicitely mention
Archaic wrote:
Of course, the only reason for XIncludes is that despite the best
intentions, it is likely a change to one page will be forgotten about in
the other.
Also, keep in mind that the location of the startfiles likewise differs
when running the tests at those two points.
Readjusting
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I don't like all the instructions in the caution. If it is supposed to
be mainline, then put it mainline, not in a caution block. If you
really need the caution, just say that the following instructions are
considered mandatory and then drop back to the normal presentation.
Archaic wrote:
There might be a better way to go about this. With only one exception,
the test commands are identical. So the first question is, why not add
grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log
I answered this already. See below.
[snip]
Now we have identical tests and manageable output leng
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:12:18PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Agreed. Unless someone else raises an objection, I'll take a look at
> fixing that up.
There might be a better way to go about this. With only one exception,
the test commands are identical. So the first question is, why not ad
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Please comment on the following:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/html-lfs-trunk/chapter06/readjusting.html
>
> and
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/html-lfs-trunk/chapter06/gcc.html
I agree with Randy's comments, but would like to address the appea
Randy McMurchy wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, as long as you're trying to remove confusion, I'd like to see
th mention of going *back* to GCC Pass1 in the GCC Pass2 instructions
to just include the instructions again instead of saying to go back
to the Pass1 instructions.
And, more importantly, I'd lik
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/30/06 18:48 CST:
> That always kind of bugged me - that in the middle of the flow you have
> to go *back* in the book and repeat some instructions.
You must do this in two other spots in the book and it has always
bugged me as well. I remember not too long
Hey All,
Trying to close this ticket:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1768
In trying to incorporate Dan's suggestions, I decided to *require* the
sanity check at the end of chapter 6 gcc. Up to now the wording there
has said it was recommended to repeat the sanity checks performed
22 matches
Mail list logo
