ompiling software is that
gcc-4 is stricter on syntax than gcc-3. So, you can safely apply any
patches in BLFS for gcc-4 because most of the time they're just for
fixing sloppy code that the gcc-3 compiler would have let slip
through.
> Also is the Gcc4 instruction set for the most part
Whoops thought i sent it to BLFS-dev my apologies
From: Joel Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
Subject: Re: Question about X-Org GCC.4 in regards to upgrading from LFS
6.1
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:21:26 -0500
Dan Winkler
Dan Winkler wrote:
> Hello All I have a quick question.
>
> I have completed LFS 6.1 and would like to get Xorg installed
This question is best asked to blfs-dev or blfs-support. The lfs-dev
list is for development of the base LFS book only.
--
Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 29
Hello All I have a quick question.
I have completed LFS 6.1 and would like to get Xorg installed
The BLFSdev book is tracking the use of gcc-4 and states most the
instruction are best done with that compiler installed and working correct?
the reason I ask is because I wish to install X.org7
Hey Guys,
Is there a particular reason HLFS has held back from upgrading to gcc 4?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
DJ Lucas wrote:
Thanks Andy. I did exactly the same last night, and did test...I just
hadn't commited it yet. Just change the extern to static in the newly
created hetio.h and all is well. I will commit your patch and update
the book a little later tonight.
Don't tell them that, make it so
Martin Ereth wrote:
Hello!
I used LFS 6.0. Then gcc 4.0 came up. I read the mail from the
lfs-announce-list, that lfs 6.1.1 will be coming soon.
It seems that gcc 4 is not included there.
Or will it be included?
What are the plans concerning the combination of gcc4 anf lfs?
Where can I
Hello!
I used LFS 6.0. Then gcc 4.0 came up. I read the mail from the lfs-announce-list, that
lfs 6.1.1 will be coming soon.
It seems that gcc 4 is not included there.
Or will it be included?
What are the plans concerning the combination of gcc4 anf lfs?
Where can I find the roadmap of the
Andrew Benton wrote:
I used gcc-4.0.2 and didn't apply any patches to glibc.
Roland McGrath is readying 2.3.6. See
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2005-10/msg00023.html. It too
should be able to handle gcc-4.0.2 just fine. No, it's not as bleeding
edge as CVS HEAD, but some of us
DJ Lucas wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
Hello people,
I just updated my copy of glibc-cvs and for the first time in ages it
passed all the tests. I don't remember the last time it passed all the
tests. For the last couple of weeks there's been a problem with perl
hanging when I ran configure, that'
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Hello people,
> I just updated my copy of glibc-cvs and for the first time in ages it
> passed all the tests. I don't remember the last time it passed all the
> tests. For the last couple of weeks there's been a problem with perl
> hanging when I ran configure, that's fixed t
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Andrew Benton wrote:
Hello people,
I just updated my copy of glibc-cvs and for the first time in ages it passed
all the tests. I don't remember the last time it passed all the tests. For
Party at Andrew's house!
Steven
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/
Hello people,
I just updated my copy of glibc-cvs and for the first time in ages it passed
all the tests. I don't remember the last time it passed all the tests. For the
last couple of weeks there's been a problem with perl hanging when I ran
configure, that's fixed too. I used gcc-4.0.2 and di
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/20/05 15:53 CST:
> Please revert the change and comment out the note for now. When
> building Ch 6, I will see if Option 2 mentioned above can still be
> used.
That would be nice if you tried it again. This is what crossed up
Bruce and I so badly when we t
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/09/05 17:10 CDT:
> Going through the book adding patches to support GCC-4 I noticed that
> I put a patch in the LFS repo (xorg-6.8.2-gcc4_fixes-1.patch) yet I used
> that one plus another patch in my recent build. Here's the other one:
Actu
ore than 1024x768. Plus it works best at 60hz instead of
> higher hz that tube monitors use. So, I blamed my troubles on using
> the old KVM.
>
> However, I can confirm these issues of the test console using Xorg
> and GCC-4.
>
Hello all. I can't see that this was discussed
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> and all is well. I saw that both you and DJ are not having issues
> with GNOME-VFS, so I'm wondering if y'all use FAM? If so, can you
> think of anything why *I'm* getting these errors?
>
Unfortunately I do not. I'll go back and add it though so that I can
see the same t
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:27 CST:
> It is supposed to be a replacement for fam,
Tushar, I'm busy with the GCC-4 work right now. Could you write an
RFC (using a new subject thread) to suggest this package as a
replacement for FAM? It would be easy enough for me
On 9/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:10 CST:
>
> > Why fix the header and then revert it back? Other FAM packages (e.g.
> > KDE) will probably have the same compliation error. If the fix is
> > technically correct, just fix it dur
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:15 CST:
> You mean they would overwrite an existing libfam and fam.h from
> the FAM package? Not that it really matters (I did read up on it),
> but I didn't really think it was prudent for devs to use the same
> names for files that have already bee
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Why fix the header and then revert it back? Other FAM packages (e.g.
KDE) will probably have the same compliation error. If the fix is
technically correct, just fix it during fam.
I agree. Just fix the fam.h with a sed before it's installed
The package I mentioned, ga
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:10 CST:
> Why fix the header and then revert it back? Other FAM packages (e.g.
> KDE) will probably have the same compliation error. If the fix is
> technically correct, just fix it during fam.
KDE has no issues with building as it is. What if a d
On 9/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:52 CST:
>
> > Yeah, ask the GNOME devs to get with the picture and support iNotify :)
> > If "#include " works around the problem, I'd just use that
> > to be honest (assuming it doesn't cause
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Going through the book adding patches to support GCC-4 I noticed that
I put a patch in the LFS repo (xorg-6.8.2-gcc4_fixes-1.patch) yet I used
that one plus another patch in my recent build. Here's the other one:
[...]
Should this o
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:34 CDT:
FAM ? I stripped that out of my scripts a while ago, couldn't see any
benefits from it, and haven't missed it. Sorry.
Hmmm
Did you read the big note that you get when GNOME-VFS doesn't find
Hi all,
Going through the book adding patches to support GCC-4 I noticed that
I put a patch in the LFS repo (xorg-6.8.2-gcc4_fixes-1.patch) yet I used
that one plus another patch in my recent build. Here's the othe
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:52 CST:
> Yeah, ask the GNOME devs to get with the picture and support iNotify :)
> If "#include " works around the problem, I'd just use that
> to be honest (assuming it doesn't cause any further problems, of course).
It's what I have in mind
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thanks for replying though. Do you have any idea what the best
solution I have to fix this? We gotta do something, we just can't
leave the book broken.
Yeah, ask the GNOME devs to get with the picture and support iNotify :)
If "#include " works around the problem, I'd j
On 9/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:34 CDT:
>
> Did you read the big note that you get when GNOME-VFS doesn't find
> it? They (GNOME devs) claim it is the only way that Nautilus (and
> perhaps other file-management stuff GNOME may do)
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:34 CDT:
> FAM ? I stripped that out of my scripts a while ago, couldn't see any
> benefits from it, and haven't missed it. Sorry.
Hmmm
Did you read the big note that you get when GNOME-VFS doesn't find
it? They (GNOME devs) claim it is the only
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote:
and all is well. I saw that both you and DJ are not having issues
with GNOME-VFS, so I'm wondering if y'all use FAM? If so, can you
think of anything why *I'm* getting these errors?
FAM ? I stripped that out of my scripts a while ago, couldn't see an
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:22 CST:
> Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 15:49 CDT:
>
>
>> A few additions:
>>
>>gnome
>>
>> gnome-vfs-2.10.1
I just noticed that you built GNOME-2.10, whereas I am building
GNOME-2.12.
Not sure if this should make a difference with the
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 15:49 CDT:
> A few additions:
>
> gnome
>
> gnome-vfs-2.10.1
I'm curious if you have FAM installed, Ken? My build of GNOME-VFS
is puking up during the configure stage trying to use the conftest.sh
program to test the fam.h header.
Here's errors from the
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Here's a current list of packages known to compile using GCC-4. The
list is updated as I go (automated). Build scripts for any of the
packages you see on this list are available upon request.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~
Hi all,
Seems GCC-4 has its issues, but nothing that there isn't workarounds
for. I'm seeing good results so far, (for Jim's purposes, I'm testing
packages as I install them) and feel good that the upstream devs are
committed to using GCC-4.
Here's a current list of
Chris Staub wrote:
I already sent a message about this, yesterday. :) Anyway, it will work
if only configure is modified
Obviously I missed it too. :) Sorry, Chris. Nice to see the
confirmation, though, thanks.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.lin
Chris Staub wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
The fix you added to the gcc 4 branch for this doesn't quite cut it,
I'm still getting Seg faults. The problem is that the configure file
specifies -O2 as a CFLAG, so the sed needs to be extended, like so:
sed -i 's/-O2/-O/' MC
7;s no more problems,
and that the 'ftp' and 'cfdisk' bugs really are fixed).
The fix you added to the gcc 4 branch for this doesn't quite cut it, I'm
still getting Seg faults. The problem is that the configure file
specifies -O2 as a CFLAG, so the sed needs to be e
that the 'ftp' and 'cfdisk' bugs really are fixed).
The fix you added to the gcc 4 branch for this doesn't quite cut it, I'm
still getting Seg faults. The problem is that the configure file
specifies -O2 as a CFLAG, so the sed needs to be extended, like so:
sed -i
at tube monitors use. So, I blamed my troubles on using
the old KVM.
However, I can confirm these issues of the test console using Xorg
and GCC-4.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
02:51:00 up
Archaic wrote:
What will the new milestone be? 6.2 or 7.0? It seems with as little
changes as are required, 6.2 would be viable.
Sounds sensible to me.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> I'll try to get around to getting the two changes in some time this
> week, then we'll merge the branch into trunk probably a week after that
> (just to give folks a chance to ensure there's no more problems, and
> that the 'f
M.Canales.es wrote:
Jim, will be cross-lfs updated also to GCC 4 or is there some archs issues?
I'm currently on working to making cross-lfs GCC 4 capable. Waiting a
response from Matt on a question I sent him. I've been successful
building a GCC4 multilib build on a Sparc. Wa
ems, and
> that the 'ftp' and 'cfdisk' bugs really are fixed).
Great :-))
Jim, will be cross-lfs updated also to GCC 4 or is there some archs issues?
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escompo
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
Apologies for the delay in responding on this - I've been away on holiday.
It seems that most folks are happy with the way GCC-4.x is holding up,
and with the inetutils patch that's one
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 01:55 CST:
>
>>Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>>
From what I can tell from the information you provided (following all
>>>relevant links), this is a tough bug to follow. I stopped reading
>>>when it was starting to dwell on the specs of
Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 01:55 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
From what I can tell from the information you provided (following all
relevant links), this is a tough bug to follow. I stopped reading
when it was starting to dwell on the specs of ISO standards.
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 01:55 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>>From what I can tell from the information you provided (following all
>>relevant links), this is a tough bug to follow. I stopped reading
>>when it was starting to dwell on the specs of ISO standards.
>>
>>I'd sure like
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>From what I can tell from the information you provided (following all
> relevant links), this is a tough bug to follow. I stopped reading
> when it was starting to dwell on the specs of ISO standards.
>
> I'd sure like to see something that explains it a bit easier.
>
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>From what I can tell from the information you provided (following all
> relevant links), this is a tough bug to follow. I stopped reading
> when it was starting to dwell on the specs of ISO standards.
>
> I'd sure like to see something that explains it a bit easier.
FWIW
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 00:43 CST:
> 3 seconds to really slow down a brute force attack. Yeah sure, that 3
> seconds is really gonna hurt...anyway, Linux_PAM-0.80 is fixed now WRT
> the segfault issue with shadow's su. shadow-4.0.12 seems to work as
> expected. I think LFS is in
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Other than that, we have the PAM/Shadow/su issue (sorry for not
> giving feedback about the -12 update yet, just update LFS and I or
> DJ will get BLFS in line. Don't ever hold up LFS for something in
> BLFS, unless it is a major deal) which isn't really an issue as
> if yo
Greg Schafer wrote:
> I've also sent a pointer to the patch upstream and
> already received a reply back that a slightly different patch has been
> committed.. but I haven't tested the new one yet..
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/commit-inetutils/2005-08/msg7.html
Works fine.
Regards
Gre
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 09:08:50PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Committed to patches as inetutils-1.4.2-gcc4_fixes-2.patch in r1076,
> but I can't test it at the moment (hardware problems) so I'm not
> updating the book.
>
Ken, I'd say go ahead and update the book. We know the patch works at
lea
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Committed to patches as inetutils-1.4.2-gcc4_fixes-2.patch in r1076,
> but I can't test it at the moment (hardware problems) so I'm not
> updating the book.
It tests out fine here. I've also sent a pointer to the patch upstream and
already received a reply back that a slig
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, William Harrington wrote:
I see now that the ping/ftp/inetutils issue is sort of a non-issue
any more now that a patch was sent in which fixes inetutils.
Do I need to send the patch for inetutils for ftp and libinetutil to
the patches group or will the patch be in the patc
I'm sure when he has the time, he'll put the
new patch into the book, at which time it will also be put into
the repo. I believe right now, Matt is the only maintainer of
the GCC-4 branch, so we just have to be patient.
--
Randy
rmlinux: [bogomips 3923.96] [GNU ld version 2.16.1]
> I see now that the ping/ftp/inetutils issue is sort of a non-issue
> any more now that a patch was sent in which fixes inetutils.
Do I need to send the patch for inetutils for ftp and libinetutil to
the patches group or will the patch be in the patches archive so
people don't keep patching inetu
David Fix wrote:
Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
All I can respond is "yes, yes, yes!" :) All progress is GOOD progress.
;) Seriously, though, I've been working on compiling a GCC-4 version of
LFS, but really wondered myself why the SVN
> Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
All I can respond is "yes, yes, yes!" :) All progress is GOOD progress.
;) Seriously, though, I've been working on compiling a GCC-4 version of
LFS, but really wondered myself why the SVN version is no
Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
I only ask again as last time I asked it seemed the respondents were
positive about the idea. I can't think of anyone that said it was
a bad idea. I don't consider your input as a "bad idea" as much as
a &q
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/23/05 18:48 CST:
> I know you have compiled them, but have you tested their
> functionality.
Yes.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
18:49:00 up 143
Randy,
I know you have compiled them, but have you tested their
functionality. Just to give you a scenario I ran into with cross-lfs.
Ping compiled ok, but when ran gives a bus error.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://li
Hi all,
Just an update for anyone interested. I've got many packages built
using the GCC-4 branch of LFS. Included so far is a functional KDE
desktop, some multimedia stuff, pdf viewer, everything it takes to
use subversion and render the LFS books, printing capability using
CUPS, Samba su
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/30/05 11:47 CST:
> Noted in the Chapter 5 instructions for Tar in the GCC-4 book is
> an instruction to install a patch (gcc4_fix_tests). The text describing
> this patch is inaccurate because this patch is not required to build
> or install
Hi all,
Noted in the Chapter 5 instructions for Tar in the GCC-4 book is
an instruction to install a patch (gcc4_fix_tests). The text describing
this patch is inaccurate because this patch is not required to build
or install the package.
The patch is only required if you run the test-suite
not patched anywhere near as heavily as flex :)
>
>> I would like to suggest that for this particular book we consider
>> using a recent snapshot of glibc HEAD.
>
>
> Well, I'd like us to get systems built with gcc 4 with as few changes to
> the rest of the book as
particular book we consider using
a recent snapshot of glibc HEAD.
Well, I'd like us to get systems built with gcc 4 with as few changes to
the rest of the book as possible. At least to start off with. If it
turns out that the combination of glibc-2.3.5+patches and gcc-4.0.1 is
unstabl
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I would like to suggest that for this particular book we consider
using a recent snapshot of glibc HEAD. Firstly, the fixes to glibc
provided by the
+1
We have used glibc snapshots before in LFS, so it is not entirely new to
us. Until the next release, i agree.
Ju
es to glibc provided by
the patches are already addressed in glibc CVS. Secondly, CVS versions
of glibc are being actively designed for compatibility with gcc 4
(taking advantage of gcc 4 features) whereas glibc-2.3.5 was not created
with gcc-4 in mind. Our patches may only get gcc4 to *work* an
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>Jim Gifford wrote:
>> Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
>>
>> What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
>
>There's already a gcc4 branch, but it's not seen any commits yet.
>It's
>now become outdated with regard
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
There's already a gcc4 branch, but it's not seen any commits yet. It's
now become outdated with regard to trunk. I'll wait for gcc-4.0.1 to
come out (they're
Archaic wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:43:57AM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>I don't think we have the manpower to maintain two mainstream LFS books.
>
>
> Agreed, but even then the cross book is much more than one book. If
> cross doesn't stabilize shortly after 6.1, then I see no reason
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:43:57AM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> I don't think we have the manpower to maintain two mainstream LFS books.
Agreed, but even then the cross book is much more than one book. If
cross doesn't stabilize shortly after 6.1, then I see no reason to not
release a 6.2. Sure
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>
>> Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
>>
>>What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
>>
>>Or do you want to continue the testing with 3.4.4, then after
>> that's completly stablized, then mov
Jim Gifford wrote:
>
>Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
>
> What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
>
> Or do you want to continue the testing with 3.4.4, then after
>that's
>completly stablized, then move to
> GCC 4.x?
>
> I've looked a
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
Or do you want to continue the testing with 3.4.4, then after that's
completly stablized, then move to
GCC 4.x?
I've looked at what Ryan has done, not to many things
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:15:05 -0700
Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
>
> What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
>
> Or do you want to continue the testing with 3.4.4, then after
> that's completly st
Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
Or do you want to continue the testing with 3.4.4, then after that's
completly stablized, then move to
GCC 4.x?
I've looked at what Ryan has done, not to many things to change.
--
---
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jeremy Utley wrote:
Greg's still focusing on strictly x86 builds
The key difference is that I only publish what I can test. Think about it.
Your claims of LFS "support" for other arches up until now is bogus.
But the multi-arch XML approach is a good move.
Then my LFS
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Greg's still focusing on strictly x86 builds
The key difference is that I only publish what I can test. Think about it.
Your claims of LFS "support" for other arches up until now is bogus.
But the multi-arch XML approach is a good move.
> I followed Greg's work for quite s
ere, but I would bet that it'll be similar to the gcc
> 2.95 / gcc 3.X upgrade. The kernel documentation said to use 2.95 (and
> still does, in fact), so that's what we did, until it started causing
> problems with the NPTL tests.
>
Just FYI, on Athlon XP, at least, the kernel (
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for
>> the kernel builds etc
>
> Why?
I'm just guessing here, but I would bet that it'll be similar to the gcc
2.95 / gcc 3.X upgrade. The kernel documentation said to use 2.95
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for
the kernel builds etc
Why?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
co svn://be-linux.org/cross-lfs/cross-lfs/trunk cross-lfs
>
>Jeremy,
>
>Thanks, I've DLed that.
>
>Where is the discussion of these developments taking place, I've
>lost
>sight of them?
>
>Has anyone tried a gcc-4 build using Ryan's method yet?
>
Thanks, I've DLed that.
Where is the discussion of these developments taking place, I've lost
sight of them?
Has anyone tried a gcc-4 build using Ryan's method yet?
Maybe I'll have a go myself later today - I have some other stuff on
punch-list first though.
I might even try th
TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a dicussion.
> I do not propose that you just copy the script - the LFS aims are quite
>different from Greg's - no reason you can't examine them for good ideas
>though.
>
>
With the new build process being worked
7;m
> willing to be proved wrong on this though, of course :)
The issue isn't just dumpspecs but also how you feed the altered specs
back to the compiler.
There are remarkably few packages that need patching as far as I found.
I'm making a list. Some major projects are already releasin
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
>>Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
>>mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
>
>
> On-Line System? Wow. I would have
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Yes. Did you ever have to work with decks of mixed 026 and 029 punched
cards? Ugly.
-- Bruce
I can remember actually punching pictures in the cards. Couldn't use
them for much other than to look at.
I actually found a stack of unpunched cards in the closet.
John
--
http:/
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Um. No... there's still the trunk branch
Did I just say 'trunk branch'? Ugh. Someone slap me upside the head
please...
--
Jeremy H.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Utley wrote:
And the simple
fact is, GCC 4.0 is not quite yet ready for integration into the LFS
book - it probably won't be until 4.0.3 or thereabouts.
But still, it would be nice to have a crack at chewing on the bugs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://ww
Jeremy Utley wrote:
But there's still the lengthy community decision process to deal with
before it makes it into rendered XML. That was the whole crux of the
Unstable branch of LFS, so those of us who were interested in playing
with that stuff could do so easily. Now that's gone :( And the s
John Gnew wrote:
> Punch cards, dropping the unnumbered decks, attempting to read cards
> that had not been interpreted... Never been there. :)
Yes. Did you ever have to work with decks of mixed 026 and 029 punched
cards? Ugly.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-d
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
On-Line System? Wow. I would have given a lot fo
Matthew Burgess wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to. But, if you
don't like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS
then post
TheOldFellow wrote:
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to. But, if you don't
like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS then
post *patches* to the XML bo
TheOldFellow wrote:
> Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
> Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
> mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
On-Line System? Wow. I would have given a lot for that capability i
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>
>> Fair comment. My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was
>> interested in gcc-4 had the links in. But thanks for repeating them.
>> I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS f
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote these words on 04/16/05 14:12 CST:
>
>
>>I had no difficulty building a reasonably stable gcc-4/glibc-2.3.5
>>system that carried BLFS with just a few patches all the way up to a
>>gnome build (with a few oddities in gnome
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
