I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
#error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for linux-libc-headers
package."
#error "(can be found at
http://ep09
> I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
> Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
>
> I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
> #error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for linux-libc-headers
> package."
> #error "(can be found at
Tobias Lieber wrote:
I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
#error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for linux-libc-headers
package."
#error "(can be
I think that there is a missing section in 11.9. The Bash Shell Startup
Files, there doesn't seem to be anywhere that the PATH is set.
In chapter 7. If You Are Going to Boot section 7.14. Setting Up the
Environment the PATH is written but never gets overridden.
At least I can't find where it
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
My rule of thumb for Beyond-Cross-LFS, at the moment, is to mention issues
on blfs-support.
Are you thinking of a dedicated Cross-LFS mailing list?
Not my call. But we are talking about strace which is a BLFS package
(in the sens
Andrew Benton wrote:
Tobias Lieber wrote:
I think that there's a small problem with installation of chapter 10
Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.12.0 installation.
I creates a the file /usr/include/linux/config.h with the lines:
#error "Compilation aborted. Please read the FAQ for
linux-libc-headers p
DJ Lucas wrote:
Well, I haven't tried the above patch yet, though judging from what I am
now seeing and the bug report attached to it, this looks like it may
needed. Thanks. It's in my currently running build along with a few
others. My new problem is that the preview in the template wiza
Duncan Webb wrote:
I think that there is a missing section in 11.9. The Bash Shell
Startup Files, there doesn't seem to be anywhere that the PATH is set.
That is correct
In chapter 7. If You Are Going to Boot section 7.14. Setting Up the
Environment the PATH is written but never gets overr
Richard A Downing wrote:
> I used to take the view (before I retired) that if: you found the right
> expert; were convinced they understood the problem; and then took their
> advice - that you didn't need to fully understand the topic yourself -
> indeed there were more complicated things about t
Jim Gifford wrote:
Duncan Webb wrote:
I think that there is a missing section in 11.9. The Bash Shell
Startup Files, there doesn't seem to be anywhere that the PATH is set.
That is correct
In chapter 7. If You Are Going to Boot section 7.14. Setting Up the
Environment the PATH is writte
El Martes, 25 de Octubre de 2005 16:03, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> The idea of keeping the code cleaner by using a function is nice,
> however I disagree that this is more readable.
At least to me the version using "case" is more hard to read and isn't as
flexible as the "_IS_" function. The "
Duncan Webb wrote:
So the cleanest thing would be to do as the FAQ says and empty
linux/config.h.
Nope, the cleanest thing to do is to fix user space applications that
are broken in their thinking that including a kernel space header is a
Good Idea (which it isn't, as is explained in the llh
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
No, the major part of the mess comes from the premature desire to remove
the hotplug package before upstream provides a patchless way to do so
and doesn't declare it obsolete for at least a month (as happened with
udevsynthesize).
And that is now completely under
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Andy Bennett wrote:
>
>> The version of the LFS book on tldp.org is still at v5.0 from November
>> 2003.
>
>
> This is a known issue that's been raised a couple of times before. TDLP
> have requirements for licensing/copyright and DocBook versions that we
> don't fulfil
Here is a patch to the current bootscripts to start/stop single interfaces
only. It is not FSB compliant afaik. I guess it will no tbe included it the
book for that reason, but since i often need it i though i might share it
with you anyway.
michael
lfs-bootscripts-3.2.1-configure_single_if-1.p
Matt, Ken, Joe, and Fellow LFS-Dev's
I have been researching this issue, I've been using fedora as a basis,
they only build one version of perl. Here's what I've been looking at.
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/perl/
They use this patch
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/p
Jim Gifford wrote:
Translated for Cross-LFS would be.
-Dlibpth="/usr/local/lib64 /lib64 /usr/lib64" \
-Dprivlib="/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.7" \
-Dsitelib="/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7" \
-Dvendorlib="/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7" \
-Darchlib="/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.7/x86_64-linux"
What bothers me i
Michael Labuschke wrote:
Here is a patch to the current bootscripts to start/stop single interfaces
only. It is not FSB compliant afaik. I guess it will no tbe included it the
book for that reason, but since i often need it i though i might share it
with you anyway.
michael
I'm assuming that
Forwarding from blfs-dev, where an ALSA related thread went just a
little off-topic for BLFS :)
Thanks Alexander, I'll try to get these changes in a.s.a.p.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I'll have to bite the bullet and see to getting all the module
hotplugging related bugs sorted out
This means ju
19 matches
Mail list logo
