On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/24/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OTOH, I don't know why most of these people think it's the CLFS package
> > either -- are they doing a search on linux-headers and finding that
> > package? Or are they doing something else t
>
> I will start tomorrow another build with the updated LFS-SVN code (if the
> new patches are availables for download at that time) and without chapter05
> M4.
Doned also. Conclusions:
M4 can be romoved from Chapter05. I'm doing the commit now.
We must to investigate wy now ICA/farces tests s
El Domingo, 25 de Febrero de 2007 00:43, Ken Moffat escribió:
> Sorry I'm a bit later than I'd like in replying to this, but I saw
> these running farce on the book as it was in December. Didn't
> bother reporting it, so feel free to moan at me.
Thanks for remembering that now.
My second ICA/f
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:41:27PM +0100, M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:40, M.Canales.es escribió:
>
> >
> > I'm doing the ICA/farce build now.
> >
>
> ICA and farce reports this differs:
>
> FAIL: /usr/lib/libstdc++.la is different
> FAIL: /usr/lib/libsupc++.la is
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 21:38, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> I had thought that the alphabetical branch didn't even touch chapter 5?
There was some changes, included the removal of the commented-out Bison and
Flex lines, when doned the merge. See
svn diff -r7279:7489 chapter05/chapter05
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 21:34, M.Canales.es escribió:
> I'm doing now a new ICA/farce build but with M4 to see if that two binaries
> differs also or not.
Another cause could be that my system have now a very big load and ocasionally
I have aleatories build fails (two times in the last
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Hmm, it looks like someone removed the old commented entries for bison
> and flex in Ch.5. Oh, that was our work in alphabetical. I guess if we
I had thought that the alphabetical branch didn't even touch chapter 5?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 21:28, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> Did you ever find out if the diffs in cc1 were related to the m4 removal?
>
I'm doing now a new ICA/farce build but with M4 to see if that two binaries
differs also or not.
If they not differ, M4 should be retained and maybe ad
On 2/24/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:58, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió:
>
> > Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine
> > via jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't
> > drop m4? If no
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:58, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió:
> Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine
> via jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't
> drop m4? If not, then I really see no reason to keep it.
HJL Binutils comp
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:40, M.Canales.es escribió:
>
> I'm doing the ICA/farce build now.
>
ICA and farce reports this differs:
FAIL: /usr/lib/libstdc++.la is different
FAIL: /usr/lib/libsupc++.la is different
That two has been here from always.
FAIL: /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-
On 2/24/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OTOH, I don't know why most of these people think it's the CLFS package
> either -- are they doing a search on linux-headers and finding that
> package? Or are they doing something else that's pointing them there?
> I don't think any of thes
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 14:49, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> No complaints here, Manuel. Thanks!
Done in r7942 and r7943
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info
On Saturday 24 February 2007 13:44, M.Canales.es wrote:
> Also I vote for changing the pages title to "Linux-2.6.20 API Headers"
>
> I can do both changes later today if there are no complaints.
No complaints here, Manuel. Thanks!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: htt
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 14:30, Bryan Kadzban escribió:
> Or, since I'm not at all sure how the automatic indexing stuff works yet
> in DocBook ({indexterm}, etc.), perhaps it would be possible to just
> remove the hyphens for that package, and call it "Linux 2.6.20 Headers"
> or "Linux H
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the
>>> "Linux-Headers" installation comes from the kernel tarball. More
>>> than one user has come into the IRC c
M.Canales.es wrote:
> What's the download URL for current HJL binutils?
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/binutils-2.17.50.0.12.tar.bz2
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 12:58, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió:
> Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine
> via jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if one doesn't
> drop m4? If not, then I really see no reason to keep it.
What's the downlo
M.Canales.es wrote:
> A previous sucessful build with all final system testsuites enabled show that
> the removal of M4 from chapter05 don't afect the testsuites.
Thanks. Could you please patch your local copy of the book and determine via
jhalfs whether it is still usable with HJL binutils, if
El Sábado, 24 de Febrero de 2007 05:49, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> Manuel, since you're all set up to do the ICA builds with jhalfs,
> could you remove m4 from Ch. 5 and see if anything happens?
I'm doing the ICA/farce build now.
A previous sucessful build with all final system testsuites enab
On 2/20/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the "Linux-Headers"
> > installation comes from the kernel tarball. More than one user has come
> > into the IRC chat asking if it was the
On 2/21/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Martes, 20 de Febrero de 2007 09:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> > > 3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was
> > > there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...
> >
> > Is that why? I have no idea,
El Martes, 20 de Febrero de 2007 09:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> > 3. Is m4 really needed in Chapter 5? I thought the only reason it was
> > there was because of Binutils, but it doesn't need m4 now...
>
> Is that why? I have no idea, and I think you're probably most
> qualified since you did all
On 2/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the "Linux-Headers"
> installation comes from the kernel tarball. More than one user has come
> into the IRC chat asking if it was the CLFS "Linux-Headers" package.
No kidding. I don't know what
1. Perhaps it should be made somewhat clearer that the "Linux-Headers"
installation comes from the kernel tarball. More than one user has come
into the IRC chat asking if it was the CLFS "Linux-Headers" package.
2. The toolchain-adjustment section says that you can edit the specs
file by hand,
25 matches
Mail list logo
