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/' MCONFIG configure
>
I al
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I reported the `cfdisk' problem upstream but haven't heard anything
back from the maintainer yet. As was mentioned in the thread (and the
bugzilla entry), simply dropping the optimisation down from '-O2' to
'-O' stops the bug from being tickled s
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I reported the `cfdisk' problem upstream but haven't heard anything back
from the maintainer yet. As was mentioned in the thread (and the
bugzilla entry), simply dropping the optimisation down from '-O2' to
'-O' stops the bug from being tickled so that looks like the mos
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 23:57 CST:
> Basically, the symptom is that text consoles are screwed up after
> starting X, and in some cases (Trident Cyber*) a completely white x
> display. To reproduce, 'startx' and then 'Ctrl+Alt+F1' and see if the
> usual text shows up, of if you get
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. Want to test M
El Lunes, 29 de Agosto de 2005 19:25, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> 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 'ftp' an
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 of the big bug
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
William Harrington wrote these words on 08/27/05 13:30 CDT:
> 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 inetutils with the incorrect patch?
Matt is a busy guy. I'm sure when
> 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 version is not u
> 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 not using GCC... No
re
25 matches
Mail list logo
