I don't know if this is really a bug or not. Several tools in the
cross compiler and the temporary tools install things into libexec.
So far it hasn't caused me any trouble as I think they are things that
never get used, then the directories get deleted. But it got me
curious, I don't see a libe
Doug,
After LFS is built, you can safely delete the /tools directory, but
I recommend keeping it as a contingency if something should ever go wrong.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/
>
> I don't know if this is really a bug or not. Several tools in the
> cross compiler and the temporary tools install things into libexec.
> So far it hasn't caused me any trouble as I think they are things that
> never get used, then the directories get deleted. But it got me
> curious, I don'
Jürg Billeter wrote:
(about udev workflow)
If you need more details or see potential problems, just mail.
Thanks. When I said about races that are hard to avoid, I just meant "I
have to inspect this because there were races in the past".
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.o
On 8/19/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug,
> After LFS is built, you can safely delete the /tools directory, but
> I recommend keeping it as a contingency if something should ever go wrong.
I never thought of that, pretty good idea though.
-Doug
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/
Doug Ronne wrote these words on 08/19/05 10:32 CST:
> On 8/19/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>After LFS is built, you can safely delete the /tools directory, but
>>I recommend keeping it as a contingency if something should ever go wrong.
>
> I never thought of that, pretty good i
in section 10.3 in the Pure64 book, I had to touch /etc/ld.so.conf in
order to get the compile to work (complained otherwise). Also, in the
make install section, I get the following error:
CC="gcc" /usr/bin/perl scripts/test-installation.pl /sources/glibc-build/
/usr/bin/ldd: line 167: /lib/ld-li
I think I discovered why I was having trouble in the pure-64 book when
I started to compile the actual system in the chroot environment.
When building the cross-tools, I ended up with no specs file. I have
to assume that this isn't correct, but I was following the book (I ran
through it twice to
Doug Ronne wrote:
I think I discovered why I was having trouble in the pure-64 book when
I started to compile the actual system in the chroot environment.
When building the cross-tools, I ended up with no specs file. I have
to assume that this isn't correct, but I was following the book (I ra
Had a x86_64 Pure 64 build on my system, here is where I found the specs
file.
/cross-tools/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.4/specs
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://
Hi guys,
Just to let you guys know: tomorrow, Saturday, at 10 AM MST (GMT-7) the
LFS server will go down for about half an hour while the server is being
moved to a new cabinet.
--
Gerard Beekmans
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
--
http://linuxfromscratc
On 8/19/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Had a x86_64 Pure 64 build on my system, here is where I found the specs
> file.
>
> /cross-tools/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.4/specs
that is where gcc reports it's specs file, but when I look there, no specs file.
-Doug
--
http://linuxfro
Doug Ronne wrote:
> /usr/bin/ldd: line 167: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: No such file or directory
>
> So I don't understand who or what is asking for /lib/ld-linux.so.2.
Looks like /usr/bin/ldd is asking for it to me. Maybe double check
that? It's just a script.
Try changing the RTLDLIST variable at t
On 8/19/05, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Ronne wrote:
> > /usr/bin/ldd: line 167: /lib/ld-linux.so.2: No such file or directory
> >
> > So I don't understand who or what is asking for /lib/ld-linux.so.2.
>
> Looks like /usr/bin/ldd is asking for it to me. Maybe double check
> t
As attachment a svn diff from BOOK to correct all misspellings of
"Additional".
Justin
Index: materials/sparc64/patches.xml
===
--- materials/sparc64/patches.xml (revision 6721)
+++ materials/sparc64/patches.xml (working
In chapter 10.6 the line
../gcc-3.4.4/configure --prefix=/usr \
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix \
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-c99 --enable-long-long \
--enable-clocale=gnu --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--disable-multilib
should re
Thanx Justin. Applied.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Thanx Doug. Change Made.
--enable-c99 -- enable the c99 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999)
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See t
Ken, Ryan, Doug, and others
Do we need to make a change here for the pure64 build, or is further
testing needed?
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
On 8/19/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken, Ryan, Doug, and others
>
> Do we need to make a change here for the pure64 build, or is further
> testing needed?
I will be on vacation for a week, otherwise I'd run through it again
carefully. But I believe I followed the book exactly to
Hi all,
I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the
GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that
are really show-stoppers.
I have built over 150 packages using the GCC-4 branch of LFS without
anything that I can see is "buggy". Except of course, t
pure-64 packages, iproute2
instead of 050815, now there is an 050816
-Doug
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the
> GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that
> are really show-stoppers.
*CHEER* Love to. :) I've not gone ahead and done a 4.01 install myself,
but I thought about it... :) I love the idea, I ju
23 matches
Mail list logo
