On 3/28/06, Dan Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> would I or Should I upgrade my GCC from the 3.x series before trying this?
Not unless you want to.
> if so can i follow the BLFS dev book on doing that upgrade with no issues?
Yes. The main difference you'd notice in compiling software is t
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 L
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
Nico R. wrote:
I suggest finding a mirror which still has version 2.01 of man-pages and
including the correct URIs in the LFS 6.1 and 6.1.1 errata.
LFS has its own package mirrors. On it are the packages for LFS version
6.0 to Development. There is no sense in adding download locations to
m this location.
LFS 6.1
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1/chapter03/packages.html>
has the same problem.
I suggest finding a mirror which still has version 2.01 of man-pages and
including the correct URIs in the LFS 6.1 and 6.1.1 errata.
Thanks,
- --
Nico
-BEGIN PGP
Giulio Daprelà wrote:
Hi all
I am pleased to announce that the italian translation of LFS 6.1 is
available at:
http://it.tldp.org/lfs/lfs/
Added the the website. Thanks.
Justin
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe
Hi all
I am pleased to announce that the italian translation of LFS 6.1 is
available at:
http://it.tldp.org/lfs/lfs/
Giulio Daprelà
-
Linux user #356310
LFS user #11031
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq
Matthew Burgess wrote:
LFS obviously can't be fixed in situ, so an errata will be published.
nALFS would then implement the fix(es) specified by all the errata
that apply to LFS-6.1, and the LiveCD would pick up the fixed nALFS
profiles and also itself be built with the fixes mention
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Sorry for not being explicit enough. Basically, as you've already
eluded to, LFS-6.1, the nALFS profiles that are based on it, and the
LiveCD that is dependent on both LFS and nALFS all need to be fixed.
LFS-6.1 obviously can't be fixed in situ, so an erra
the user for
building LFS would still be broken.
Sorry for not being explicit enough. Basically, as you've already
eluded to, LFS-6.1, the nALFS profiles that are based on it, and the
LiveCD that is dependent on both LFS and nALFS all need to be fixed.
LFS-6.1 obviously can't be fix
Matthew Burgess wrote:
As for the Right Thing To Do for the livecd, I think that the general
rule should be to follow the book wherever possible, but deal with any
and all errata as they become known. Otherwise, we're effectively
giving folks a known broken/insecure install by default.
So,
Steve Prior wrote:
I'd rather not have the different LFS subprojects
all pointing fingers at each other saying that it should get fixed there
first
I don't think anyone's pointing fingers. However, it should be noted
that this bug is already fixed in the development version of LFS (i.e.
wha
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Steve Prior wrote:
Yes, my point exactly. If the bug is in LFS then *that* should be fixed
and released, and in turn, the LiveCD can follow suit.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Steve.
--
JH
My concern at the moment is a practical one. I have a machine I really want
Steve Prior wrote:
I don't disagree with that philosophy JH. What I think should be the issue
now is to determine how serious this GLIBC issue really is. If it is a
serious security issue and therefore makes "LFS 6.1 stable" a defective
release (don't
mean this as bad
to determine how serious this GLIBC issue really is. If it is a
serious security issue and therefore makes "LFS 6.1 stable" a defective release
(don't
mean this as bad work against the LFS group, just that a bad apple got into
the pile), then I think it might be time for LFS
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Tough question. The problem while Jeremy Huntwork was the project leader
was that exactly the same versions of packages had to be used in the
book and on the LiveCD (with the exception of ncurses because of "xterm
-lc" compatibility needed for i18n purposes). I'd ra
Steve Prior wrote:
Alexander - any chance of an upcoming revision of the LFS-6.1 Live CD
which uses glibc 2.3.5 to resolve the ssh privsep issue?
(aka http://blfs-bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1534, it's a
good candidate for the LFS errata page.)
Tough question. The pr
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:33:56PM -0600, Allen J. Newton wrote:
>
> Quick question: How much work would be involved in retrofitting an LFS 6.1
> system to hardening to HLFS specs (as opposed to doing the complete rebuild
> procedure documented in the book)?
You are pretty much goin
On Friday 26 August 2005 17:56, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It rasies the issue of what to do with the income. Gerard is the
> copyright holder and he has spent a significant amount of personal funds
> on the project.
This is true. I also have costs regarding lfs (at least for the german
translation)
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> some of you might remember me, i'm the german translator of the book since
> some time now.
>
> A few weeks ago at Linuxtag in germany i met a publisher who is very
> interested in publishing my german translation of 6.1 as printed book here in
> ge
Hello people,
some of you might remember me, i'm the german translator of the book since
some time now.
A few weeks ago at Linuxtag in germany i met a publisher who is very
interested in publishing my german translation of 6.1 as printed book here in
germany.
I mailed Gerard two times about t
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:35:27AM +1000, Jath Palasubramaniam wrote:
>
> > ln -s ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
>
> At this point the user is in the directory '/sources/gcc-build/'. A
> single '..' only places you in the 'sources/' directory. I believe the
> command should be either:
Look at the note on
Jath Palasubramaniam wrote these words on 07/21/05 18:35 CST:
> I think there is an error in the second-last instruction. It says:
>
> > Some packages expect the C preprocessor to be installed in the /lib
> directory. To support those packages, create this symlink:
> > ln -s ../usr/bin/cpp /li
Hi,
Sorry, if this is the wrong place for posting a couple of errors i've
found in the LFS-6.1 book. Anyway...
__
Chapter 6.14 GCC-3.4.3
I think there is an error in the second-last instruction. It says:
> Some packages expect the C preprocessor to be installed in the /lib
direc
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:20:46 -0700, GN wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 23:18, Archaic wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:03:05AM +0200, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
>> > This would be a good step for final 6.1
>>
>> No it would be a terrible step. One week isn't possibly long enough to
>> test such
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:00:52 +0200, lfs-user wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm trying to build a new LFS using the newly released profile for 6.1,
> and have some problems. My host is LFS-6.0, upgraded to 2.6.12.2 kernel.
>
> When building glibc, it fails make check in both chapter 5 and 6, and the
> problem
lfs-user wrote:
Hi
I'm trying to build a new LFS using the newly released profile for
6.1, and have some problems. My host is LFS-6.0, upgraded to 2.6.12.2
kernel.
When building glibc, it fails make check in both chapter 5 and 6, and
the problem is tst-clock2:
-su-3.00# more /mnt/lfs/to
Hi
I'm trying to build a new LFS using the newly released profile for 6.1,
and have some problems. My host is LFS-6.0, upgraded to 2.6.12.2 kernel.
When building glibc, it fails make check in both chapter 5 and 6, and
the problem is tst-clock2:
-su-3.00# more /mnt/lfs/tools/build/glibc-bui
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 23:18, Archaic wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:03:05AM +0200, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
> > This would be a good step for final 6.1
>
> No it would be a terrible step. One week isn't possibly long enough
> to test such drastic changes. We are trying to produce a "stable"
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I pulled a fresh copy of LFS from SVN:
>>
>> svn co svn://linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/branches/6.1/
> Right, you want the *tagged* version, not the branch.
OK. I've got it now.
> Err, that'd be the one *already fixed* for the 6.1-pre2 release I
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Wrong list. Sorry.
Well, yes, but we'd already responded to you several times on the wrong
list, saying that your fears were unfounded. Do you want us to forward
our 4 or 5 replies on to this list too?
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: h
Wrong list. Sorry.
Original Message
Subject: LFS-6.1 - svn and security issues
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:18:31 -0500
From: Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: BLFS Support List
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> The Linux From Scrat
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:55:38PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Congratulations guys on the release. Good work as usual. :)
Thanks!
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxf
Congratulations guys on the release. Good work as usual. :)
--
Gerard Beekmans
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1. This release includes a large number of package upgrades
(including Linux-2.6.11.12, GCC-3.4.3 and Glibc-2.3.4) and security
fixes (including the recently disclosed zlib vulnerability). It also
includes a large
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:03:05AM +0200, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
>
> This would be a good step for final 6.1
No it would be a terrible step. One week isn't possibly long enough to
test such drastic changes. We are trying to produce a "stable" book and
while those updates you mentioned may produce
Hi guys,
good work so far ..
Well I think you should wait one more week and
include the latest kernel 2.6.12 and headers
available now. Also you may include
binutils 2.16.1 as it is already in svn and gcc 3.4.4
This would be a good step for final 6.1
cYa Bernd
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Bes
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1-pre2. This pre-release for the upcoming final 6.1 revision of
the book includes a patch to fix a recently disclosed security bug in zlib.
You can read the book online at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:40:43PM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
> The GCC-Pass 2 page still has a link to an old version's (3.4.1)
> testsuite results - this should be changed to
Good eye! Thanks!
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Sc
The GCC-Pass 2 page still has a link to an old version's (3.4.1)
testsuite results - this should be changed to
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/logs-6.1-pre1/chapter6/gcc-3.4.3
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1-pre1. This pre-release for the upcoming final 6.1 revision of
the book includes a large number of package upgrades and security fixes.
It also includes a fair amount of editorial work on the explantory
material
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I'll be doing a 6.1 pre-release tomorrow night
(~19:00-20:00 UTC).
Well, the astute amongst you will have noticed this never happened!
Archaic and I are busy doing a final review of the text. This should be
all done by tomorrow night...honest!
Given that slippage, I'
Archaic wrote:
Those are contradictory. 1586 required command changes.
Of course it did. I was just testing you :) Errm, what can I say?
Whoops :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> There are two bugs remaining to be fixed (1582 and 1586) which are
> simply textual changes.
> Editors, I think it goes without saying, strictly no package upgrades or
> command changes now please.
Those are contradictory. 15
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Justin, could you spin final package tarballs based on what's
currently listed in chapter 3 of the testing branch please?
Hi Matt,
Sure, just double-checked all the versions and patches. A tarball and
md5sums has been generated and should be synced on all servers by t
El Lunes, 27 de Junio de 2005 19:53, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Hi folks,
>
> After a very long delay [1] it looks as if we really are nearly there.
> There are two bugs remaining to be fixed (1582 and 1586) which are
> simply textual changes. I'll be doing a 6.1 pre-release tomorrow night
> (~19
Hi folks,
After a very long delay [1] it looks as if we really are nearly there.
There are two bugs remaining to be fixed (1582 and 1586) which are
simply textual changes. I'll be doing a 6.1 pre-release tomorrow night
(~19:00-20:00 UTC). I'd like to get 6.1 out this weekend, though I
reali
Hello,
Pasha Zubkov found that the font isn't being correctly set on
framebuffer consoles. This bug also affects LFS-6.1-testing.
I have attached fixed console scripts for LFS-6.1 and 7.0 (the
difference is that in the 6.1 script all UTF-8-related stuff is omitted).
Now these scripts
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
I don't see any development or discussion about 6.1 anymore on the lists, so
what is blocking the release?
Maybe there is a good reason, so i thought i could simply ask... ;-)
Well, whether it's good or not I don't know but I'll give you the reason
anyway. Basicall
Hello people,
i'm just curious. My german translation of the book is finished since a long
time and no strings have been changed for weeks (months?) now.
So i wonder, when we can expect a 6.1 release?
I don't see any development or discussion about 6.1 anymore on the lists, so
what is blocking
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I suppose that would be fine, though I still would like to see a brief
summary about it.
Oh, and by summary, I really just mean the purpose of the cd - what it
does and why it exists. Just to give the users a reason for coming to
look at the cd and its independant page in
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Is it possible to simply point interested folks to a web page that can
be updated independently of the book?
Since you're obviously up and around, I'll make a reply now ;)
I suppose that would be fine, though I still would like to see a brief
summary about it. Perhaps it d
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hey Guys,
Would just like to ask if the target date for the release of 6.1 has
changed at all.
I think it will have to, given the occasional problems people are seeing
with the localnet bootscript, and the fact that I've a fairly lengthy
TODO list still to get through. I'
Hey Guys,
Would just like to ask if the target date for the release of 6.1 has
changed at all. I'm trying to finalize a release version of the latest
cd which will use 6.1 as a base and include its book and source
packages, etc. Would be useful to know what kind of a time frame we're
looking
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:23:48PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> ERASECHAR 010
Mine is 0177.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
My typo. My fault. Sorry for all the effort. :((
I enjoyed it. I learned some stuff from this thread. And it's nice to
see I'm not the only one that makes silly mistakes. ;)
--
Jeremy Huntwork
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfroms
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Everyting works fine. Checking an older configuration, I have
ERASECHAR 0177
Mine's 0177 here. Is it maybe worth comparing config.log's offline?
King's X. All stop. My fault!
In my script I have:
sed -e '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@MD5_CRYPT_ENAB yes@' \
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Mine's 0177 here. Is it maybe worth comparing config.log's offline?
Matt.
Likewise.
--
Jeremy H.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Everyting works fine. Checking an older configuration, I have
ERASECHAR 0177
Mine's 0177 here. Is it maybe worth comparing config.log's offline?
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the ab
I think I found the problem. In shadow-4.0.7, the file login.defs has:
# Login configuration initializations:
#
# ERASECHAR Terminal ERASE character ('\010' = backspace).
# KILLCHARTerminal KILL character ('\025' = CTRL/U).
# UMASK Default "umask" value.
#
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
When I compiled the kernel, I turned off Legacy (BSD) PTY support.
I'll build another kernel and add that back and see if that makes a
difference.
I don't think it will -- I have it off here too. But it'd be worth a
shot.
As you suspected, it did not make
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> None of your boot scripts (or your login scripts) set stty erase
>> ^H, correct? You never know...
>
> Not unless it's done in the lfs-bootscripts.
I don't believe it is, because my 6.1 system (using the lfs-bootscripts)
doesn't do it.
> When I comp
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:53:26PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> The RH system has a 2.4 based kernel. No. Never tried to build from that.
It might be worth a shot. Hopefully a 2.6 kernel is all you need to
satisfy the chap5 toolchain reqs. We need to determine where this
problem lies.
--
Arc
Archaic wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:49:52PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
You have
said you built 6.1-pre1 more than once and keep getting this error. Each
time you built, did you use the live CD or have you tried building the
system from the Redhat that it came with?
The RH system has a 2.4 ba
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:49:52PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "same host."
The host is the system that is running while you are building. You have
said you built 6.1-pre1 more than once and keep getting this error. Each
time you built, did you use the live CD or h
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
None of your boot scripts (or your login scripts) set stty erase ^H,
correct? You never know...
Not unless it's done in the lfs-bootscripts.
stty seems to pull those settings in from a tcgetattr() call. The
"struct termios" that that call fills in, has the ^H character code s
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 07:50:03AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> In any case, we are getting closer. I did follow the book precisely and
> took the option of not changing anything in the console configuration.
> This worked in the past. It would certainly be easy enough to throw in
> a "stty san
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
1) is there any difference in the output of "stty -a" on the livecd and or
your system? Post both.
2) does a "stty erase ^?" or "stty sane" fix your problem? If it does, please
find out why this is not the default on your system.
Interesting. On my new system:
#stty
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> As an interesting note, from vim, do a :help Linux-backspace
>> That is exactly what I am running into.
Opinions differ on this subject. Since "Linus Torvalds and Debian policy
authors" and "Vim authors" cannot be both right, an editor's chioce
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
As an interesting note, from vim, do a :help Linux-backspace
That is exactly what I am running into.
Do you have a /etc/sysconfig/console file? Or did you leave it alone?
I left it alone. Evey line is commented out.
Guess I'm wondering if you have a keyma
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
As an interesting note, from vim, do a :help Linux-backspace
That is exactly what I am running into.
Do you have a /etc/sysconfig/console file? Or did you leave it alone?
Guess I'm wondering if you have a keymap that needs fixing as is
mentioned here:
http://www.linuxfromscrat
Archaic wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:29:31AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Have you rebuilt the entire system?
Yes.
So this error is reproducible with a full build? Were you using the same
host?
I'm not sure what you mean by "same host." I bought a new system with
RH on it. After a session wi
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:29:31AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> >Have you rebuilt the entire system?
>
> Yes.
So this error is reproducible with a full build? Were you using the same
host?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scrat
Archaic wrote:
Have you rebuilt the entire system?
Yes.
Perhaps compare termcap files?
Um, I thought this was compiled now. What file did you mean?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:17:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> No, I gave up. I have a woraround in /etc/vimrc:
Have you rebuilt the entire system? Perhaps compare termcap files?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I would really like to find the problem and fix it however.
Bruce,
Did you ever get this sorted out? Just curious.
No, I gave up. I have a woraround in /etc/vimrc:
if &term == "linux"
set t_kb=
endif
Where the value after the t_kb= is a literal delete
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I would really like to find the problem and fix it however.
Bruce,
Did you ever get this sorted out? Just curious.
--
Jeremy H.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:17:18PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Sorry. I should have specified. I get ^? printed on the screen in
insert mode or in :ex mode. No characters are erased.
A Ctrl-h works properly as a backspace should.
I cannot reproduce this on any of the builds I've d
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:17:18PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> Sorry. I should have specified. I get ^? printed on the screen in
> insert mode or in :ex mode. No characters are erased.
> A Ctrl-h works properly as a backspace should.
I cannot reproduce this on any of the builds I've done s
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The backspace key is not working correctly in vim.
I can fix the problem with
echo "keycode 14 = BackSpace" | loadkeys
but that doesn't seem right to me.
It just isn't right, it will also break Emacs.
I cannot reproduce this here, but my LFS is ra
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The backspace key is not working correctly in vim.
> I can fix the problem with
>echo "keycode 14 = BackSpace" | loadkeys
>
> but that doesn't seem right to me.
It just isn't right, it will also break Emacs.
I cannot reproduce this here, but my LFS is rather old. Could
I've just finished building lfs-testing SVN-20050402 from the 6.0 boot cd.
Most things went fine and I have timing/size data that I will put
together and post after bit. Right now the system is a plain LFS system
with the only addition being ssl/ssh.
I have run into a keyboard problem that I'd
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Does the boot CD's
/usr/include/errno.h #include ?
At first I thought it doesn't, but it is OK. I ended up rebooting the
CD and checking everything and now it works. I really don't know what
was going on, but I'm continuing with the testing build.
Thansks for the feedback
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2/bfd -I.
-D_GNU_SOURCE -DTRAD_CORE -I. -I../../binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2/bfd
-I../../binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2/bfd/../include
-I../../binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2/bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
I am trying to build a test system from the LFS6 boot cd.
In chapter 5, I can't even get through the 1st binutils:
/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2/bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -DTRAD_CORE -I.
-I../../binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2/bfd
-I../../binutils
86 matches
Mail list logo
