steve crosby wrote:
My intent was to identify that one of the options provided in the
thread (Jim's work with the linux headers) has problems, as it's
currently not working with certain applications outside of LFS.
Perhaps I should have been more clear in the comment I made.
I'll leave the discu
On 5/4/06, Matt Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> a setup. The sticking point would be programs that include linux/.h
>> or asm/.h, if there are any. And it sounds like there are glibc
>> alternatives to all of t
Matt Darcy wrote:
I think we are going to disagree here I'm pretty calm about this, and
I've got not problem with patience, I was happy to wait for responses
and dicussion to pick up, I am frustrated that I called out in detail
how I didn't want this thread to turn out, and people just ignored
Matt Darcy wrote:
I was wrong and once again return to my belief that this mailing list is
not working and needs to be moderated or subscription.
This list *is( subscription only.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscrib
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
I'm really dissapointed that this thread has turned into a "support"
thread for certain products and arguments over specifics.
The whole point of this thread was to discuss the options and directions
of the whole projects not answer specific questions about
There's nothing at all wrong with the mailing list. It's just the
inherent nature of a project that is spread out among group of
volunteers that don't always have time to discuss properly - the medium
used is to discuss isn't to blame. In fact, it's good that you brought
this up here becaus
Hi again,
Sorry about the previous post. Slipped onto the send button.
On 4/30/06, Matt Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the di
Matt Darcy wrote:
> I'm really dissapointed that this thread has turned into a "support"
> thread for certain products and arguments over specifics.
>
> The whole point of this thread was to discuss the options and directions
> of the whole projects not answer specific questions about certain hea
Hi everyone,
On 4/30/06, Matt Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
a.) Do we stick with LLH and p
Matt Darcy wrote:
This mailing list is clearly not working, what is the point of trying to
use this list to communicate with other developers when it is pretty
clear that it is impossible to have a discussion on a topic despite
clear requests to no do certain things, people still ignore it and
steve crosby wrote:
On 5/1/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a setup. The sticking point would be programs that include linux/.h
or asm/.h, if there are any. And it sounds like there are glibc
alternatives to all of those headers anyway, so it would be the program
that's broken.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with
jim's script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
I thought iptables required the "raw" kernel source anyway?
Regardless, it's definitely one of the few Linux-specific programs.
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I have to agree with Bryan on this one. Half the reason that the
headers in include/{linux,asm} are static is because you want to
advertise the same set of kernel interfaces to userspace programs that
your C libraries are aware of.
Isn't it up to the glibc headers to say w
On 4/30/06, Andrew Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> Andrew Benton wrote:
> How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
>
> Yes, glibc has support for its syscalls, but the LLH headers do not, and
> AFAIK glibc doesn't install headers for it; userspace program
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>
>>> that's what I get for building a firewall box against the
>>> 4.something or 5.0 book and then never updating it.)
>> Why? Did it fail? Was there a security issue?
>
> Well, I think there are security issues with Apache tha
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> that's what I get for building a firewall box against the
>> 4.something or 5.0 book and then never updating it.)
>
> Why? Did it fail? Was there a security issue?
Well, I think there are security issues with Apache that I need to fix.
But that wo
Andrew Benton wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Try Version 00.45, I built it with no issues, let me know.
Where is that? http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers is showing version
00.37 at the moment.
Andy
http://headers.cross-lfs.org - I'll update that version right now, thanx.
--
http://linuxfroms
Jim Gifford wrote:
Try Version 00.45, I built it with no issues, let me know.
Where is that? http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers is showing version
00.37 at the moment.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See th
Andrew Benton wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with jim's
script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get
ip to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> that's
> what I get for building a firewall box against the 4.something or 5.0
> book and then never updating it.)
Why? Did it fail? Was there a security issue?
Bottom line: you don't have to make upgrades unless there real reasons
to do so, not just because a package w
Andrew Benton wrote:
> And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
> to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I can't get out of
> LFS.
I am running a complete LFS-SVN-20060418 system built with Jürg's headers
and so far everything is fine. I'm at QT right n
Hi Andy,
Andrew Benton schrieb:
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with jim's
script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLF
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
> to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I can't get out of LFS.
>
I've built two clfs systems in the past few days (one, without any
audio/video
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> I thought iptables required the "raw" kernel source anyway?
>
>
> No, it builds fine with just the sanitised 2.6.12 llc headers.
I stand corrected then.
(I really think it had a parameter to the kernel source tree in its make
command, though; it
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I thought iptables required the "raw" kernel source anyway?
No, it builds fine with just the sanitised 2.6.12 llc headers.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with jim's
script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I can't get out of LFS.
steve crosby wrote:
> iptables is one such application - currently non functional with
> jim's script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
I thought iptables required the "raw" kernel source anyway?
Regardless, it's definitely one of the few Linux-specific programs. Its
only purpose in
On 5/1/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a setup. The sticking point would be programs that include linux/.h
or asm/.h, if there are any. And it sounds like there are glibc
alternatives to all of those headers anyway, so it would be the program
that's broken. (Unless it's Linux-s
(Gaah! I think I need to change the address that I've subscribed. At
least that way my mailer would use the right one by default.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>
>> So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any
>> kernel headers at all? Is it just for
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm not sure I completely understand. Is Linus saying that it is up
> to the interface library to *copy* the needed data structures (not
> including) from the kernel to their own set of public headers?
Yes.
> If so, is this because the kernel devs don't know what definition
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>>
>> So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any
>> kernel headers at all? Is it just for glibc (and stuff like util-linux
>> that's Linux specific)? Hmm.
>
> Yes, LKML folks appear to agree that the kernel headers are jus
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any
> kernel headers at all? Is it just for glibc (and stuff like util-linux
> that's Linux specific)? Hmm.
Yes, LKML folks appear to agree that the kernel headers are just for the C
library (be it glibc,
Chris Staub wrote:
> Matt Darcy wrote:
>> 3.) users and group creation, I'm reluctant to touch on this again as
>> I know its close to a few individuals hearts and a lot of time has
>> been put into this, but due to the ude discussion I think its worth at
>> least touching upon.
>> a.) do we defi
Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
>>
>
> I'm unaware of what glibc-2.3.6 does. glibc-2.4 does install
> /usr/include/sys/inotify.h regardless of whether linux/inotify.h is
> found.
Ah, so glibc does install it.
So then, if g
Matt Darcy wrote:
Hi all,
Now I've laid down my request lets look at the topics, that in my mind
are unclear and up for dicussion.
2.) Udev - This again has been a hot topic of many projects, but with
LFS now dropping hotplug I feel it important ti discuss and clear up a
few areas
a.) Ude
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:29:16AM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote:
>
> 1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
> talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
> direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
For LFS-6.2, I recommend
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
(Resending because I think I used the wrong From: address last time
around.)
Andrew Benton wrote:
How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
Yes, glibc has support for its syscalls, but the LLH headers do not, and
AFAIK glibc doesn't install headers for it; use
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> install the raw kernel headers from the 2.6.16 kernel in
>> /tools/glibc-kernheaders and compile glibc against them. For
>> userspace, keep using the 2.6.12 sanitised llc headers. Works for me.
>> It worked well for LFS-6.0. It's a tried and test
I wrote:
III) Devices usable in LFS are correctly named and have proper
permissions, as assigned by LFS developers.
III) II, plus: Devices not usable without BLFS packages are at least
correctly named. IOW, if one installs a BLFS package without reading the
udev/passwd part in BLFS book, the d
Matt Darcy wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
b.) work with Jim's methods of sanitizing our own headers
c.) Look at what
(Resending because I think I used the wrong From: address last time
around.)
Andrew Benton wrote:
> install the raw kernel headers from the 2.6.16 kernel in
> /tools/glibc-kernheaders and compile glibc against them. For
> userspace, keep using the 2.6.12 sanitised llc headers. Works for me.
> It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Darcy (the guvnah!) wrote:
c.) what are the livecd doing with udev - removing hotplug ? what rules
are they using ? etc
I'd hope they're using the same rules as LFS+BLFS.
Our rules contain all official ones, plus some livecd-specific ones.
If not, I'd sugges
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Darcy (the guvnah!) wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
a.) Do we stick with LLH and pray it
Matt Darcy (the guvnah!) wrote:
> 1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
> talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
> direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
> a.) Do we stick with LLH and pray it takes off again
> b
44 matches
Mail list logo
