Shane Shields wrote:
Archaic wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:13:19PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
The bottom paragraph of section 4.6 in LFS-Testing points to the LFS
Wiki for information about failed tests. Is there perhaps an updated
URL that could more directly point to this informati
I found this website when talking to roel last night on IRC. One thing
that surprised me was the LFS was actually mentioned in this document
along with cross-compiling.
http://www.scratchbox.org/documentation/general/tutorials/explained.html
For all the documents which have really good informa
Jim Gifford wrote:
I found this website when talking to roel last night on IRC. One thing
that surprised me was the LFS was actually mentioned in this document
along with cross-compiling.
http://www.scratchbox.org/documentation/general/tutorials/explained.html
What gets my goat is that it i
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> compiler in temp-tools using your AMD64, it'll have compiled binaries
>> targeted for the Sparc processor. Now, how is your AMD64 going to
>> execute those Sparc instructions?
>
>
> Would be using a different sort of compiler here - you'd be
On 17 Jun 2005, you wrote in lfs.dev:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:32:56PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>> Well, personally I measure them using the following simple rule:
>>
>> 1. Start timing immediately after the tarball has been unpacked.
>> 2. Don't time the running of any testsuite com
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Is there something major that's wrong with this suggestion that I'm not
seeing at the moment? Anyone else think of advantages or disadvantages?
Opinions?
Thanks for all the comments on this. They were actually very helpful.
They clarified a few things for me and hop
On 6/17/05, Steve Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> SBU's are a wild-ass guess. The methodology of calculating SBU's is fine,
> but the application of someone else's build time measurements bear only
> rough resemblance to my system - specifically because of architecture,
> disk, memory, CPU
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> On 6/17/05, Steve Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> SBU's are a wild-ass guess. The methodology of calculating SBU's is fine,
>>but the application of someone else's build time measurements bear only
>>rough resemblance to my system - specifically because of archite
Steve Crosby wrote:
>
> SBU's are a wild-ass guess. The methodology of calculating SBU's is fine,
> but the application of someone else's build time measurements bear only
> rough resemblance to my system - specifically because of architecture,
> disk, memory, CPU cache differences etc. Do w
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I recommend just establishing a policy and using it as specified. The
> details of the policy are not that important. Documenting and following
> the policy is important.
>
> -- Bruce
I'd guestimate that approx 90% or more of users (probably all
developers) use the th
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> I'd guestimate that approx 90% or more of users (probably all
> developers) use the the first cmmi for binutils as the baseline SBU just
> Change it or don't, but justify
> the change.
On second thought, don't. The extra commands are to be installed later
and seem to me to b
11 matches
Mail list logo
