On Sam, 2005-04-02 at 08:55 +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>
> > In case anyone is interested, I have a GCC4 based build working really
> > well.
>
> Did they get the fixincludes in there to allow building from a host with
> a stock glibc-2.3.4 install on it - i.e. they fix
JÃrg Billeter wrote:
Yes, apparently fixed as of March, 21.
Lovely, thanks.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Until then, you'll have to wait until I render the book and post a link to
> > it :)
>
> OK, it's now rendered and available at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.
>
Curse you, Red Bar
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> e2fsprogs-1.37 fails `make check' (copied by hand from the other screen)
>
> make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/e2fsprogs-1.37/build/lib/e2p'
> LD tst_ostype
> In file included from ../../../lib/e2p/ostype.c:10:
> ../../../lib/e2p/e2p.h:5:28: ext2
I tried building testing on my P4 desktop and got a failure during
glibc's make check in chapter 5:
make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/tools/build/glibc-build/nptl/tst-cancelx17.out] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/tools/build/glibc-2.3.4/nptl'
make[1]: *** [nptl/tests] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving d
Ken Moffat wrote:
Did I miss the LFS editorial decision not to test
package upgrades ?
Ouch! There obviously was no such decision. I did do a 'make check' on
the latest version but on my bastardised LFS-6.0 box (i.e. LFS-6.0 with
various package upgrades). From that post:
" Note: if e2fsprogs
Mike Hernandez wrote:
I tried building testing on my P4 desktop and got a failure during
glibc's make check in chapter 5:
make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/tools/build/glibc-build/nptl/tst-cancelx17.out] Error 1
I get:
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-cancel17.out] Error 1
make[3]: *** [/sources/gl
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> So that's why I never saw it. I simply don't have the time or resources
> to do a full rebuild every time a package gets upgraded.
>
Hmm, now I've seen your comment that you hadn't built it all. OK, the
branch is for testing, let's carry on and bea
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
So that's why I never saw it. I simply don't have the time or resources
to do a full rebuild every time a package gets upgraded.
Hmm, now I've seen your comment that you hadn't built it all.
On the contrary, my comment said that I *did
Ken Moffat wrote:
Confirmed that 1.36 ran check ok, diffed it and realised this is a new
test. Google found one thread for e2fsprogs tst_ostype - the fix is at
http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2005-March/000490.html
Thanks, Greg. Did I miss the LFS editorial decision not to test
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
FWIW, Ryan asked me last night in IRC to forward a message to lfs-dev
that contains a patch which solves this same issue, I believe.
Thanks Jeremy (and Ryan). However, for such a trivial one-liner, I'd
prefer to go with Greg's `sed' (or a variation thereof) - unless he's
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So that's why I never saw it. I simply don't have the time or resources
> >>to do a full rebuild every time a package gets upgraded.
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, now I've seen your comm
Me again,
hotplug has `mkdir /var/log/hotplug' - I get
cannot create directory `/var/log/hotplug': File exists
and sure enough, near the end of the log from `make install' is
/usr/bin/install -c -d /var/log/hotplug /var/run
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://
Ken Moffat wrote:
Me again,
hotplug has `mkdir /var/log/hotplug' - I get
cannot create directory `/var/log/hotplug': File exists
Thanks Ken. Added to my TODO list.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
On Apr 2, 2005 12:53 AM, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > What remains is reported at:
> >
> > http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1068
>
> Many thanks Alexander. Those don't seem too risky to get into 6.1, or
> are they? They certainly s
Le Samedi 2 Avril 2005 20:20, Matthew Burgess a écrit :
> Mike Hernandez wrote:
> > I tried building testing on my P4 desktop and got a failure during
> > glibc's make check in chapter 5:
> >
> > make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/tools/build/glibc-build/nptl/tst-cancelx17.out]
> > Error 1
>
> I get:
>
> make[
On Apr 1, 2005 10:20 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > Probably best to delay it for a while, as a brand new release of
> > the bootscripts was introduced to LFS a couple of days ago. These
> > bootscripts probably should be tested out before releasing a
On Apr 2, 2005 4:23 PM, DECHAMPS Benoît <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You probably are using a 2.6.11.x kernel. You must use a 2.6.10 kernel or
> older to get the glibc make check successfull.
> --
That is indeed the case... the system did seem to build fine even
though the check failed. I'm about
I would like to do a point release of the bootscripts before the LFS
6.1 release.
alexander recently filed a bug about rethinking where the modules
script goes. [He wants it after the udev script, for systems that
disable hotplug handling on bootup], and I think this change should go
into LFS 6.1
Nathan Coulson wrote:
I would like to do a point release of the bootscripts before the LFS
6.1 release.
alexander recently filed a bug about rethinking where the modules
script goes. [He wants it after the udev script, for systems that
disable hotplug handling on bootup], and I think this change s
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> However, for such a trivial one-liner, I'd
> prefer to go with Greg's `sed' (or a variation thereof) - unless he's
> going to claim rights over it like he did with a previous effort.
Don't be ridiculous. Last time it was a question of attribution. LFS has a
poor record
21 matches
Mail list logo
