This is prompted by upgrading zlib to 1.2.3 (thanks to Matt for the
heads up). Everything in my system using a shared libz is linked
against libz.so.1 (good), but we persist in offering packages a symlink
from /usr/lib/libz.so to /usr/lib/libz.so.1.2.3 [ png bit me when I
overlooked that in my sc
On 8/1/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is prompted by upgrading zlib to 1.2.3 (thanks to Matt for the
> heads up). Everything in my system using a shared libz is linked
> against libz.so.1 (good), but we persist in offering packages a symlink
> from /usr/lib/libz.so to /usr/lib/l
1. At the end of the "Editors" section, there is a page for "Others
Editors" - this should be "Other Editors."
2. For most packages it says to "Install [package] by running the
following commands:" followed by "Now, as the root user:". It would be
more accurate to say "Build [package] by runni
Chris Staub wrote:
> 1. At the end of the "Editors" section, there is a page for "Others
> Editors" - this should be "Other Editors."
Fixed. Thanks.
> 2. For most packages it says to "Install [package] by running the
> following commands:" followed by "Now, as the root user:". It would be
> more
Hi all,
I'm just about finished building the GCC4 branch of LFS which is
(I believe) trunk using GCC-4.0.1. Everyone is by now aware that
there will be difficulties with some BLFS packages using GCC-4.x.
I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
looking for ideas on how t
Hi all,
I'm just about finished building the GCC4 branch of LFS which is
(I believe) trunk using GCC-4.0.1. Everyone is by now aware that
there will be difficulties with some BLFS packages using GCC-4.x.
I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
looking for ideas on how t
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/01/05 13:28 CST:
> [snip]
Sorry, wrong list
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
13:33:01 up 121 days, 13:06, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.27, 0.44
--
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
> looking for ideas on how to go about making whatever changes might
> be necessary to the package instructions available to the community.
Randy,
I built a GCC-4.0.0 system some time ago (and
El Lunes, 1 de Agosto de 2005 20:01, Randy McMurchy escribió:
>
> Manuel, could you start looking into the differences between the
> 1.68.1 and recent version so we can think about updating BLFS.
1.69.0 is a beta version. Actually, all "dot cero" versions are beta, not
intended to production use
Repost 'cos I didn't see it was the wrong list either...
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
> looking for ideas on how to go about making whatever changes might
> be necessary to the package instructions available to the communi
On 8/1/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One idea I have is to create a GCC4 branch of BLFS and as packages
> are confirmed (or instructions updated to work) they are added into
> this branch. The branch would essentially be empty of packages, with
> the ones missing having instead a
Richard A Downing wrote:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/
That link is also mentioned on
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/read.html, now that we mention the
various branches of LFS.
Cheers,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.l
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
>> http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/
>
> That link is also mentioned on
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/read.html, now that we mention the
> various branches of LFS.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt.
I just can't keep up with you lot.
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 08/01/05 13:56 CST:
> http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/
Thanks Richard, I have already done quite a bit of research, along
with visiting the link you mentioned. However, I think you misunderstood
the purpose of my message.
I'm not so much lo
On 8/1/05, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1.69.0 is a beta version. Actually, all "dot cero" versions are beta, not
> intended to production use, then not suitable to be added to BLFS. In two or
> three weeks will be released 1.69.1.
Damn, I have to downgrade.
I wish maintainers wou
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Based on my past experience with gcc upgrade, I plan to stay away from
gcc-4.x till a 4.1 release :-) So a branch sounds good to me.
Tushar, you're at least the second person I know of that's stated the
same plan. However, 4.1.0 will more than likely be *less stable*
Randy McMurchy wrote:
One idea I have is to create a GCC4 branch of BLFS and as packages
are confirmed (or instructions updated to work) they are added into
this branch.
That sounds like a good plan to me. Whatever you guys decide to do,
I'll ensure that our pointers to GCC-4 info inform fol
Hi all,
Just a really, really minor nit from my notes:
In the Chapter 5 Tcl instructions it wouldn't hurt to throw in a
chmod -v 755 /tools/lib/libtcl8.4.so
command at the end of the instructions. The reason being is that if
you do the stripping at the end of Chapter 5 as the LFS user, this fil
OK, BLFS 6.1-pre1 is on line at:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.1/
The tarball is at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/6.1/blfs-book-6.1-html.tar.bz2
The 6.1 patches and bootscripts are in place in the same directory.
There won't be a pdf version of the -pre releases.
Wrong list!
-- Bruce
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> OK, BLFS 6.1-pre1 is on line at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.1/
>
> The tarball is at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/6.1/blfs-book-6.1-html.tar.bz2
>
> The 6.1 patches and bootscripts are in place in the same dir
Hi all,
A minor nit I noticed in the Chapter 5 GCC instructions (all versions):
Noted in the SBU times between Pass 1 and Pass 2 is that they seem to
be reversed. Pass 1 is shown to be 4.4 SBU and Pass 2 is 11.0. Shouldn't
these be the other way around?
My experience is that bootstrapping Pass 1
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I'm just about finished building the GCC4 branch of LFS which is
> (I believe) trunk using GCC-4.0.1. Everyone is by now aware that
> there will be difficulties with some BLFS packages using GCC-4.x.
>
> I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
>
The Beyond Linux From Scratch (BLFS) Team is pleased to announce the
release of BLFS 6.1 Prerelease 1. This book is the complement to Linux
>From Scratch 6.1 and provides build and installation instructions for
over 360 Open Source packages, including X Windows, KDE, and Gnome.
The book can be fo
On 8/1/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/01/05 18:09 CST:
>
> > Sigh
> >
> > And here I was thinking that *everyone* knows who Emily Littela is.
>
> Misspelled her name. Emily Litella.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella
>
See
can you please add my email address to the newsletter
MGN HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Level 10,
34 Queens Street
Melbourne 3000.
Australia
Work: (03) 96145944
Mobile: 0413 271 127
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
DISCLAIMER
THIS TRANSMISSION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY MGN HOLDIN
Hi
Matt, as maintainer of the GCC4 branch you should be aware of an issue
affecting the GCC4 build on x86. Some folks may consider this minor but I
believe it is important.
The issue arises as a side effect of the build method. To be precise, only
GCC Pass1 is run as `make bootstrap'. The other 2
26 matches
Mail list logo
