Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> That's the difference between Europeans and Americans. Americans only
>> speak/understand one language.
>
> And even then they don't speak it very well, unlike their British
> counterparts :-)
Our language, our rules
On 2012-08-21 08:06, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> That's the difference between Europeans and Americans. Americans
>> only
>> speak/understand one language.
>
> And even then they don't speak it very well, unlike their British
> counterparts :-)
On 8/21/2012 12:06 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> That's the difference between Europeans and Americans. Americans only
>> speak/understand one language.
>
> And even then they don't speak it very well, unlike their British
> counterparts :-)
>
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> That's the difference between Europeans and Americans. Americans only
> speak/understand one language.
And even then they don't speak it very well, unlike their British
counterparts :-)
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 14-08-2012 22:31, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>
> Sometime before, Ken escreveu:
>
>>>Bryan, you were perspicacious. I've just spent a few hours
>>> re-energising my limited perl knowledge. First, to try to
>
>
>>
>> BTW, I had to look up perspicacious.
> Funny, th
Em 14-08-2012 22:31, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Sometime before, Ken escreveu:
>> Bryan, you were perspicacious. I've just spent a few hours
>> re-energising my limited perl knowledge. First, to try to
>
> BTW, I had to look up perspicacious.
>
>-- Bruce
>
Funny, this was the easiest pa
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:07:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> >> I think that means our build process is no longer adequate for this
> >> version of glibc.
>
> That's overstating things a bit. I'm looking at how soversions.mk is
> generated. Ther
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:51:01PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> soversions.mk is created in make, not make install. The suspect code is
> in Makeconfig around line 839:
>
> echo "$$lib.so-version=\$$(if
> \$$(abi-$(default-abi)-$$lib-soname),\$$(abi-$(default-abi)-$$lib-s
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:56:06PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
For the moment, please don't treat this as a priority. I've been
distracted by other things today and am nowhere near confirming that
it is indeed a perl-5.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:56:06PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> For the moment, please don't treat this as a priority. I've been
>>> distracted by other things today and am nowhere near confirming that
>>> it is indeed a perl-5.16 problem. If it isn't c
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 17:54 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:56:06PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >> For the moment, please don't treat this as a priority. I've been
> >> distracted by other things today and am nowhere near confirming that
> >> it is ind
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:56:06PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> For the moment, please don't treat this as a priority. I've been
>> distracted by other things today and am nowhere near confirming that
>> it is indeed a perl-5.16 problem. If it isn't caused by perl-5.16,
>> th
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:56:06PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> For the moment, please don't treat this as a priority. I've been
> distracted by other things today and am nowhere near confirming that
> it is indeed a perl-5.16 problem. If it isn't caused by perl-5.16,
> then fixing the perl is not
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:40:28PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:31:36PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >>>
> >>>When the ld.so regexp triggers on x86_64, the line contains:
> >>> ld.so-version=$(if $(abi-64-ld-soname),$(abi-64-ld-soname),ld.so.1)
> >
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:31:36PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>
>>>When the ld.so regexp triggers on x86_64, the line contains:
>>> ld.so-version=$(if $(abi-64-ld-soname),$(abi-64-ld-soname),ld.so.1)
>>>
>>>My initial reaction when I saw that was unprintable - I still h
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:31:36PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > When the ld.so regexp triggers on x86_64, the line contains:
> > ld.so-version=$(if $(abi-64-ld-soname),$(abi-64-ld-soname),ld.so.1)
> >
> > My initial reaction when I saw that was unprintable - I still have
> > no idea where
> Bryan, you were perspicacious. I've just spent a few hours
> re-energising my limited perl knowledge. First, to try to
> instrument test-installation.pl, then to understand what is
> happening.
>
> When the ld.so regexp triggers on x86_64, the line contains:
> ld.so-version=$(if $(abi-64-ld
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 11:21:44AM -0700, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Fun fun fun. :-)
>
> Andrew Benton wrote:
> > test-installation.pl failed with an error:
> >
> > root:/sources/glibc-2.16.0# CC="gcc" /usr/bin/perl
> > scripts/test-installation.pl /sources/glibc-build/
> > Unmatched ( in regex; m
> The patch changes stdio.h so that even in C11 gets() is defined, but
> adds __attribute__ ((error("gets() is dangerous. Don't use it."))) to
> both gets() in stdio.h and bits/stdio2.h.
__gets_chk() in bits/stdio2.h
> The advantage from my point of view is that there is no "not defined"
> error
It is very rare that the developer ever has full control of stdin,
so any use of gets warrants an unconditional warning. Assume it is
always declared, since it is required by C89.
It's required by C89, but deprecated in C99, and removed in C11 -- and
glibc follows C11 by removing the declaratio
Le 12/07/2012 05:18, Bryan Kadzban a écrit :
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> Fixed by this sed in the gcc source before the first pass of gcc:
>>>
>>> sed -i '/k prot/agcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes' gcc/configure
>> I don't mind displaying my lack
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>> Fixed by this sed in the gcc source before the first pass of gcc:
>>
>> sed -i '/k prot/agcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes' gcc/configure
>
> I don't mind displaying my lack of autofoo knowledge in public, so why
> is pass
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Then an error due to a problem with gcc:
>
> /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/resolv/libresolv_pic.a(gethnamaddr.os): In
> function `getanswer':
> /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.16.0/resolv/gethnamaddr.c:180: undefined reference
> to `__stack_chk_
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:47:33 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:55:42 +0100
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>
>> > (We won't hit the libgcc_s.so problem with Gcc until we start using
>> > Gcc-4.7.2)
>>
>> Hi Andy, I've finally
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:55:42 +0100
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> > (We won't hit the libgcc_s.so problem with Gcc until we start using
> > Gcc-4.7.2)
>
> Hi Andy, I've finally gotten around to looking at this. You mention we
> won't start hit
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> /mnt/lfs/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu/4.7.1/../../../../x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
> cannot find -lgcc_s
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/iconv_prog] Error 1
> m
Fun fun fun. :-)
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Then an error due to a problem with gcc:
>
> /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/resolv/libresolv_pic.a(gethnamaddr.os): In
> function `getanswer':
> /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.16.0/resolv/gethnamaddr.c:180: undefined reference
> to `__stack_chk_guard'
> /mnt/lfs
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I should confess that (as I'm a devotee of the Klingon School of
> Programming) I didn't run any of the tests, so there may be some more
> bugs under those rocks.
Andy,
Thanks very much for that effort. I'll work on integrating your fixe
Andrew Benton wrote:
> I hope you are all well.
>
> Glibc-2.16.0 has been released
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.16.0.tar.xz
> The good news is that it no longer needs the patches that are in
> current LFS. However, there are still some problems with it.
Lots of work Andy. Thanks. I am
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 06:20:52PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I should confess that (as I'm a devotee of the Klingon School of
> Programming) I didn't run any of the tests, so there may be some more
> bugs under those rocks.
>
> Andy
By Her Noodliness, that looks fun! Or perhaps FFun with _tw
30 matches
Mail list logo
