Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many of the patches we use are from other distributors, who don't
> specifically license their patches. The only way to know the license
> for sure is to get it from the original hacker or author, and this
> can be a painful thing to maintain.
This is
Hi all,
Noted in the "Installed Programs" section of the 6.1 stable LFS book
Shadow-4.0.9 section is that it says the 'groups' program is installed.
However, we don't install this program because there's a sed command
performed during the installation that inhibits the installation.
I did not ch
Hi,
since the demise of -hackers, I guess this is the most appropriate place
for this question: Does anyone know of a site listing binutils test
results ?
On my pure64 build of 6.1 for x86_64 from i686, I'm seeing failures in
the ld testsuite (5 failures on bootstrap tests, 2 failures on cdtes
On 7/23/05, Bernard Leak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This wouldn't be a problem, since I *have* libiconv, except that the
> library hasn't been specified in the build line for javaws.
>
If you have a glibc based system, you should *not* install libiconv
since glibc has its own implementation
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>>
>>>The make check in module-init-tools does absolutely nothing since the
>>>testsuite tarball is not downloaded.
>>
>> Correct. It has been noted in the DIY build since near day 1.
>
> So you decided to take the book, do
Hi
I haven't seen this mentioned on the LFS lists so I'm bringing it up here
for your info.. LFS is certainly affected.
2.6.12 kernel introduced a new feature called "address space randomization"
and it's switched on by default. AFAICT, this is the same thing that Red Hat
calls "exec-shield-rando
jim wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: 2005-07-22 21:07:35 -0600 (Fri, 22 Jul 2005) New Revision: 6572
>
> Log:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: jim | 2005-07-22 20:06:43 -0700 This changes the build
> method in cross-tools.
>
> It removes glibc-headers from all architectures except for x86 and
> x86_64. It
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/23/05 18:53 CST:
> Jim, what's the story? One minute you say that Cross-lfs is ready for
> prime time.. then you go and make massive changes like this?
I was going to post almost the exact question. But I'm not ready
to start building new LFS' at the moment so
On 7/23/05, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is the development happening? I do not see it happening on the LFS
> lists.
I think the development happens on IRC coz I have not seen any major
discussion on the lists.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linu
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/22/05 20:28 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>Does this sound like a good plan? DJ?
>
> Looks like we crossed between send/receive times. Sounds good to me.
DJ,
I have got Cracklib-2.8.3 ready to commit. I also finished the patch.
Would you like me to commit the u
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/23/05 19:38 CST:
> On 7/23/05, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Where is the development happening? I do not see it happening on the LFS
>>lists.
>
> I think the development happens on IRC coz I have not seen any major
> discussion on the lists.
I've built GCC4-20050721 up through chapter 6 "readjusting toolchain".
When, as recommended, I compile dummy.c and running readelf -l on it,
everything appears normal, but the executable is in fact un-runnable:
[lfs chroot src]# ./a.out
bash: ./a.out: No such file or directory
[lfs chroot src]# ld
On July 23, 2005 06:54 pm, Matt Bartley wrote:
> I've built GCC4-20050721 up through chapter 6 "readjusting toolchain".
> When, as recommended, I compile dummy.c and running readelf -l on it,
> everything appears normal, but the executable is in fact un-runnable:
Would you mind posting this to the
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/23/05 19:38 CST:
>
>>I think the development happens on IRC coz I have not seen any major
>>discussion on the lists.
>
>
> If this is true, then it sucks. As has been requested by many users
> of the mail lists, development should
Greg Schafer wrote:
jim wrote:
Where is the development happening? I do not see it happening on the LFS
lists. Where is Ryan lately?
Right now there is no major discussions occuring with the cross-lfs
book, on or off of the lists.
The cross-lfs branch of the LFS book is in nearly do-as-you-
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
BTW, where did Jim say that the book was ready for drop-in text? I don't
recall seeing that at all... did I miss something? The book probably
*is* ready, though, for one or more experienced LFSers to grab it and
start testing.
--
JH
Probably this -
http://linuxfroms
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Seems like just a day or so ago Jim was saying that the book is now
ready for the wordsmiths.
It still is, but everyone seems to be interested in the next release of
LFS 6. So I made a change on my own, which is a positive change for the
book.
--
--
[EMAIL PROT
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
So my point is: Jim's been working on the book to a large extent by
himself for the past few weeks and his goal is just to get a sane-ish
book ready for public review and comments and suggestions. (Also for
the addition of text.) So perhaps a little slack should be allow
18 matches
Mail list logo
