While building lfs-development (SVN-20040614), I found that expect won't
compile in chapter 5. The configure script bombs out with the error:
configure: error: Can't find Tcl private headers
I don't understand how expect's configure script works, but it seems
to be thrown off by the version numb
Not sure this is lfs-dev material, but irc.linuxfromscratch.org seems
to be down...
Just thought I'd mention it... ok I'm lying, actually I'm addicted to
irc and I'm going through withdrawal. ;)
Mike
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa
Mike Hernandez wrote:
Not sure this is lfs-dev material, but irc.linuxfromscratch.org seems
to be down...
Just thought I'd mention it... ok I'm lying, actually I'm addicted to
irc and I'm going through withdrawal. ;)
Actually, it's just the lfs-matrix.de server, which is now in the
process
On 6/15/05, Matt Bartley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While building lfs-development (SVN-20040614), I found that expect won't
> compile in chapter 5. The configure script bombs out with the error:
>
> configure: error: Can't find Tcl private headers
>
> I don't understand how expect's configure
Hi all,
I'm having trouble validating the Testing branch after r5982.
Seems adding the patch-entities stuff to the bzip2.xml file is causing
problems.
Anyone else?
I use custom validation and rendering scripts, so it may be me.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble validating the Testing branch after r5982.
> Seems adding the patch-entities stuff to the bzip2.xml file is causing
> problems.
The patch entity stuff shouldn't have been merged. I'll look to see what
happened.
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1509 has a short
discussion that has turned into how to calculate an SBU.
Basically the issue is this; At which commands do we start and stop the
calculation process? It seems that the most readily definable and
maintainable solution is to include e
Archaic wrote:
Now for the sake of current BLFS svn, I see no need to change this in
6.1, but for future releases I propose the entire build instructions be
used which would add:
make -C ld clean
make -C ld LIB_PATH=/tools/lib
Now there is no reason to add this *except* that section 4.5 of the
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 05:59 pm, David Jensen wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
> >Now for the sake of current BLFS svn, I see no need to change this in
> >6.1, but for future releases I propose the entire build instructions be
> >used which would add:
> >
> >make -C ld clean
> >make -C ld LIB_PATH=/tools
David Jensen wrote:
I don't think it's a big thing, BLFS sbu ratios would then be
*slightly* high.
Few would notice.
actually I think all the values could be grep'd, cut, adjusted with a
ratio and sed'd, all in a for loop.
Anyone up to the script?
--
David Jensen
--
http://linuxfromscratc
David Jensen wrote these words on 06/15/05 18:08 CST:
> actually I think all the values could be grep'd, cut, adjusted with a
> ratio and sed'd, all in a for loop.
> Anyone up to the script?
Well, there's certainly no rush. This would be for after BLFS-6.1.
And we must wait until we know what ve
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:04PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> This is of course, going on Matt and Archaic's recommendation that
> the SBU factoring doesn't change until after LFS-6.1.
Randy, what is your take on the proposal for post-6.1?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security
Archaic wrote these words on 06/15/05 23:30 CST:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:04PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>This is of course, going on Matt and Archaic's recommendation that
>>the SBU factoring doesn't change until after LFS-6.1.
>
> Randy, what is your take on the proposal for post-6
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:47:47PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> As a builder, and especially as a BLFS editor, I want to run
> these 3 steps individually, and examine the output of each log
> file. Sure, this is tedious, but I don't care. If make fails
> because I added a dependency that choke
Archaic wrote these words on 06/15/05 23:57 CST:
> Don't the &&'s take care of you?
[embarrassed]Actually, I don't use them. I run each command
cut-and-paste individually[/embarrassed]
Reason being is that configure won't consider it an error if
a dependency I'm trying to catch isn't found, or
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:20:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My installation log for the Module-Init-Tools package shows that
> the genksyms, insmod_ksymoops_clean, kallsyms, kernelversion, and ksyms
> programs (links) are not installed.
>
> I'm not sure if I have a bad installation, or
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I don't think the last two binutils
commands belong in the timing of the SBU, as these two commands
aren't involved in the build process of the *binutils* pass1
chapter 5 package. These two commands are used as part of the
setup for binutils in pass2. To me I see this diffe
17 matches
Mail list logo
