Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Am 23.02.2013 00:47, schrieb Tobias Gasser:
>>
>> i'll report if i run into problems.
>>
>
> i finished the build without any errors. this includes xfce, firefox
> 18.0.2, thunderbird 17.0.2, libreoffice 3.6.5.2, gimp 2.8.2.
>
> i did not check about warnings, but none of my
Am 23.02.2013 00:47, schrieb Tobias Gasser:
>
> i'll report if i run into problems.
>
i finished the build without any errors. this includes xfce, firefox
18.0.2, thunderbird 17.0.2, libreoffice 3.6.5.2, gimp 2.8.2.
i did not check about warnings, but none of my scripts aborted with an
error.
Le 25/02/2013 00:02, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>
> Of course we are not building Fortran or Ada or Java, but with the
> commands I wrote earlier, I do have the following in /usr/share/info:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 240866 Feb 24 19:13 cpp.info
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 50231 Feb 24 19:13 cppinterna
Ken Moffat wrote:
> http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/programming_history.html
2008? Isn't it time for us to invent another language? Or should we
leave it to some desperate Ph.D. student looking for a dissertation topic?
:-)
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 06:45:26PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Nitpick: Its Ada, not ADA. Ada stands for Augusta Ada King, Countess
> of Lovelace, the first programmer. She worked with Charles Babbage.
>
>-- Bruce
>
See :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/22/verity_stob_8086_and_al
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/24/13 17:45 CST:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>>For anyone who builds ada (really ? why ? :) in BLFS, I guess they
>>> are going to be missing the ada info files.
>>
>> I did some Ada coding once (1990s), but not for production. It has
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/24/13 17:45 CST:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> For anyone who builds ada (really ? why ? :) in BLFS, I guess they
>> are going to be missing the ada info files.
>
> I did some Ada coding once (1990s), but not for production. It has
> *very* strong type checking
Ken Moffat wrote:
> For anyone who builds ada (really ? why ? :) in BLFS, I guess they
> are going to be missing the ada info files.
I did some Ada coding once (1990s), but not for production. It has
*very* strong type checking and is sometimes used where very high
reliability is needed. F
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 05:02:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Of course we are not building Fortran or Ada or Java, but with the
> commands I wrote earlier, I do have the following in /usr/share/info:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 240866 Feb 24 19:13 cpp.info
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 50231 Fe
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 01:31:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point. I didn't notice that they were there by default. If the
>>> .info files are present, then there
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 01:31:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Pierre Labastie wrote:
> >> Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Good point. I didn't notice that they were there by default. If the
> > .info files are present, then there is no need to build
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>
>>> I'm inclined right now to leave things alone. The book will build now,
>>> just without the .info file. I suspect that the next gcc release,
>>> whether it will be 4.8 or 4.7.3, will address the issue.
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> I'm inclined right now to leave things alone. The book will build now,
>> just without the .info file. I suspect that the next gcc release,
>> whether it will be 4.8 or 4.7.3, will address the issue.
> I tested one of the la
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>>
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
>>> I don't think that's enough. The first fai
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:13:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> It turns out that the above warning does not actually stop the build
> like s/item/itemx/ does.
>
> > Leave it with me - even if a larger patch does solve everything, I
> >guess a workaround will still be needed in chapter 5 for bu
On 02/24/2013 04:03 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 20:13 CST:
>> I still am not in favor of putting this in LFS-7.3. It's so much easier
>> to omit the .info build completely and, of course, there is no sense at
>> all in building it in Chapter 5.
>
> I reall
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 21:23 CST:
> About the only reason why is to avoid questions like "Why isn't the
> latest version of package X in the book?"
Because it came out while LFS-7.3 was in package-freeze mode. Oh wait,
we don't do package-freeze! :-)
> I look at it as simila
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 20:13 CST:
>> I still am not in favor of putting this in LFS-7.3. It's so much easier
>> to omit the .info build completely and, of course, there is no sense at
>> all in building it in Chapter 5.
>
> I really don't understand why t
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 20:13 CST:
> I still am not in favor of putting this in LFS-7.3. It's so much easier
> to omit the .info build completely and, of course, there is no sense at
> all in building it in Chapter 5.
I really don't understand why texinfo-5.0 had to go into LF
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure indicates
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>>Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
>>> parts). Attached.
>>
>> I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
>> gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
> > parts). Attached.
>
> I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
> gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure indicates prob
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
> parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure indicates problems in:
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/gcc.texi
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/invoke.
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:56:20AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'll see if I can put together a consolidated patch.
> Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
> parts). Attached.
Thanks, I'll take a look. Rhetorical question: does it really brea
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:56:20AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
> >>> test b
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
>>> test build this weekend with it in though.
>>
>> So, I managed to carve out som
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> > I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
> > test build this weekend with it in though.
>
> So, I managed to carve out some time :-) I've decid
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
> test build this weekend with it in though.
So, I managed to carve out some time :-) I've decided to upgrade
IPRoute2 as well, so as we get support for the new networkin
Am 23.02.2013 00:13, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>
> We've worked around the gcc problems by avoidign building the .info
> files (does anyone really use them?).
i've seen the workaround.
i don't use .info-files, i even delete them!
> I just did a test build of wget-1.14 with lfs-7.3-rc1 and got no er
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 17:13 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Tobias Gasser wrote:
> >
> > for the kernel i'd like to see the 3.8 branch in lfs 7.3, as 3.7 won't
> > be a LTS kernel. i just finished a complete 7.3rc build (including xfce,
> > mozilla, gimp, libreoffice, qemu) with kernel 3.8 without any
Tobias Gasser wrote:
>
> is it a wise decision to use upgrade to 5.0 for the 7.3 release?
>
> as far i can understand there are no security issues with 4.13a but as i
> can see from google there are quite some compatibilty issues in
> different packages with 5.0 (coreutils, gcc, wget, qemu, docbook
is it a wise decision to use upgrade to 5.0 for the 7.3 release?
as far i can understand there are no security issues with 4.13a but as i
can see from google there are quite some compatibilty issues in
different packages with 5.0 (coreutils, gcc, wget, qemu, docbook...)
i prefer to keep the 4.
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 13:20 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> We need to do the
> following in all three builds of gcc:
>
> sed -i -e 's/BUILD_INFO=info/BUILD_INFO=/' gcc/configure
>
> This just omits the gcc*.info files (3 files) and avoids building the
> useless info files in Chapter 5.
Great, ni
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56258
>>>
>>> It doesn't help a lot. It appears
On 02/18/2013 12:16 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 18/02/2013 10:45, Matthew Burgess a écrit :
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs
>> wrote:
>>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
>
> makei
Le 18/02/2013 10:45, Matthew Burgess a écrit :
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
>>>
>>> makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
>>> ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
>>>-I ../.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
>>
>> makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
>> ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
>>-I ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/include -o doc/gccint.info
>> ../../gcc-4.7.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
>
> makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
> ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
>-I ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/include -o doc/gccint.info
> ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/gccint.texi
>
> g
39 matches
Mail list logo
