On Thursday 08 February 2007 19:28, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Any news on the expected release date of 4.1.2 ?
Not until just now: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-02/msg00174.html -
4.1.2-RC2 is out now. 4.1.2 final should be out early next week.
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinf
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007 19:10, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 02/08/07 13:05 CST:
>>> Now that I'm more or less settled down in my new place, I'd like to don
>>> the Release Managers hat again if nobody else objects?
>> Sounds good to me,
On Thursday 08 February 2007 19:10, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 02/08/07 13:05 CST:
> >
> > Now that I'm more or less settled down in my new place, I'd like to don
> > the Release Managers hat again if nobody else objects?
>
> Sounds good to me, though I'll mention
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 02/08/07 14:06 CST:
> But I will agree if you can investigate how FOP-0.93, and it dependencies,
> should be installed.
I'm already on that one. There's no reason that BLFS trunk can't be
updated with it.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2
El Jueves, 8 de Febrero de 2007 20:44, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> I'd like to second that we wait on the book source conversion for a
> release. This will have to happen sooner or later, and after
> BLFS-6.2.0 is as good a time as any. This doesn't mean we can't keep
> moving the book towards rel
On 2/8/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I try not to look at the detail of glibc if I don't have to.
> Certainly, it ought to be calling itself 2.5. On clfs Jim has
> prepared a "somewhat larger" patch (about 1.6MB) - most of it is
> translation updates for various locales, but there
On 2/8/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Jueves, 8 de Febrero de 2007 20:05, Matthew Burgess escribió:
>
> > I'll go through Trac and reassess milestones and such like tonight, but I
> > think a 6.3 release within 1 month is feasible. Does everyone else agree?
>
> That would meant n
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 07:05:25PM +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Anything that helps everyone's sterling efforts over in BLFS-land is fine by
> me! I'd like to get GCC-4.1.2 and at least some of the Glibc fixes in. I've
> not even had a chance to look at that patch yet. I think we can then
El Jueves, 8 de Febrero de 2007 20:05, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> I'll go through Trac and reassess milestones and such like tonight, but I
> think a 6.3 release within 1 month is feasible. Does everyone else agree?
That would meant not time to me to do the update to
DB-XML-4.5+DB-XSL-1.72.1+F
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 02/08/07 13:05 CST:
> I'll go through Trac and reassess milestones and such like tonight, but I
> think a 6.3 release within 1 month is feasible. Does everyone else agree?
Sounds good, Matt. And actually, there's no rush, I just mentioned
it to stimulate som
On Thursday 08 February 2007 06:52, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I propose that we announce a plan to release LFS-6.3.It sure would
> make life easy over on the BLFS side with this 6.2 branch we have
> that targets LFS 6.2. An LFS 6.3 release would eliminate the need
> for us over in BLFS to maintain t
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/08/07 09:41 CST:
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc/glibc-2.5-branch_update-1.patch
>> But that is for the 2.4 branch, right? Not saying we need it or
>> not, just identifying that I remember that it was for the old
>> kernel series. Or
On 2/8/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/08/07 08:27 CST:
> > Robert has put together a patch with updates from the
> > upstream 2.5 branch. We may want to apply some or all of it:
> >
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc/gl
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/08/07 08:27 CST:
> Robert has put together a patch with updates from the
> upstream 2.5 branch. We may want to apply some or all of it:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc/glibc-2.5-branch_update-1.patch
But that is for the 2.4 branch,
On 2/8/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > The current LFS SVN has an entirely upgraded toolchain, and many
> > updates to core packages since the 6.2 release. I just built it and
> > it appears rock solid.
>
> That's because you didn't use any CFLAGS.
On 2/7/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I propose that we announce a plan to release LFS-6.3. It sure would
> make life easy over on the BLFS side with this 6.2 branch we have
> that targets LFS 6.2. An LFS 6.3 release would eliminate the need
> for us over in BLFS to maintain the
steve crosby wrote:
> Thats not the experience I have here - temporary rules are created in
> /dev/.udev, and correctly copied from there to the /etc/udev/rules.d
> directory by the udev_retry bootscript. Or is this related to network
> cards only? (my temporary rules are for cd-rom naming)
>
> Th
On 2/8/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > The current LFS SVN has an entirely upgraded toolchain, and many
> > updates to core packages since the 6.2 release. I just built it and
> > it appears rock solid.
>
> That's because you didn't use any CFLAGS.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> The current LFS SVN has an entirely upgraded toolchain, and many
> updates to core packages since the 6.2 release. I just built it and
> it appears rock solid.
That's because you didn't use any CFLAGS. If you had -Os in CFLAGS, you
would hit ticket #1935.
> Booted withou
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 02/08/07 00:52 CST:
> (using Linux-2.16.20
Um, that would be 2.6.20
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
00:55:00 up 29 days, 1:09, 1 user, load aver
Hi all,
The current LFS SVN has an entirely upgraded toolchain, and many
updates to core packages since the 6.2 release. I just built it and
it appears rock solid. Booted without a hitch (using Linux-2.16.20,
Udev-105 and current LFS bootscripts). So far, everything seems really
solid.
I propose
21 matches
Mail list logo
