DJ Lucas linuxfromscratch.org> writes:
> OMG sorry about that! I read about jhbuild a couple of weeks ago, can't
> remember what for. Stuck on the brain I guess...donno. Anyway *jhalfs*
> has proven to be a great tool! Thanks again.
Er, wow. I thought you were joking or something. I just st
DJ Lucas wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# grep Error glibc-build/glibc-check-log
make[2]: [/usr/src/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# grep Error glibc-build-patched/glibc-check-log
make[2]: [/usr/src/glibc-build-patched/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
[EMA
DJ Lucas wrote:
I have not compared the testsuite results
yet. I completely forgot about them, so I've got to rebuild without the
patch again. The patched version tests are running now. Will report
again tomorrow after work.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# grep Error glibc-build/glibc-check-log
Matthew Burgess wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask
someone else to do a f
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hey dude! How about moving that clock up about 6 hours?
Sorry bout that. Chicago was a link to /etc/localtime (which was a link
to itself (ID ten T error)). Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
F
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
I used jhbuild for my first time last night so as to get at it quick. I
jhbuild? jhalfs maybe? :) Either way, glad you liked it. We're always
looking for suggestions, so feel free to send any to alfs-discuss.
--
JH
OMG sorry about that! I read
DJ Lucas wrote:
I used jhbuild for my first time last night so as to get at it quick. I
jhbuild? jhalfs maybe? :) Either way, glad you liked it. We're always
looking for suggestions, so feel free to send any to alfs-discuss.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
F
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/05 13:10 CST:
> [snip all]
Hey dude! How about moving that clock up about 6 hours?
:-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
19:12:00 up 58 days, 4:36, 3 use
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:58:03PM +, DJ Lucas wrote:
I think that the deciding factor should be that this is acknowledged
and fixed upstream. OTOH, it looks like BLFS can work arround it if
needs be with an LD_PRELOAD line...It might be a pain to find them,
but it can be do
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:58:03PM +, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> I think that the deciding factor should be that this is acknowledged
> and fixed upstream. OTOH, it looks like BLFS can work arround it if
> needs be with an LD_PRELOAD line...It might be a pain to find them,
> but it can be done I sup
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. "Doctor, it hurts
when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it."
In
Ken Moffat wrote:
Looking at the gentoo, debian, and blfs references, this seems to be
triggered by (a) nvidia drivers, or (b) gnome (versions/items not
specified), or (c) xmms (1.2.8? debian version) without libmikmod2, or
(d) some OOo issue. From here, trying to trigger the bug looks like
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Note that BLFS-6.1 assumes LFS-6.1 as a base, therefore I'd think that
> BLFS-6.1.1 (if there is such a release) will assume LFS-6.1.1. As such,
> I don't consider OOo2 to be an issue as it's not in an existing release
> of BLFS. Xine may be a different issue, though as
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
> library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. "Doctor, it hurts
> when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it."
In the test
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that
sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems.
It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug
report m
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that
> sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems.
It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug
report mentioned elsewhere by DJ for the l
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd suggest
testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and verified only
on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask som
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask
someone else to do a full 6.1.1-pre1 build witho
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5. The patch for 2.3.5 is also in patches. It's
been running for about 10 hours on an establish system of around 4
mo
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5. The patch for 2.3.5 is also in patches. It's
been running for about 10 hours on an establish system of around 4
months under modera
20 matches
Mail list logo
