Hello guys,
I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and latest kernel version differs?
regards Bernd
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa
Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and latest kernel version differs?
No, there aren't any problems that *I* know of, and a recent discussion
on this list suggests that others haven't had any problems ei
Andrew Benton wrote:
# Assign udevsend to get hotplug events. udevsend can manage the
whole
# hotplug handling by taking over the kernel spawned event process
echo "/dev/null" > /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug
Hmm, I simply changed this to "> /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug"
Jim Gifford wrote:
I'm getting this in cross-lfs as soon as it gets out.
Like I said when you mentioned this last week, Jim, I'd prefer LFS to
get this feature first, after all necessary discussions have taken
place. I realise that you've been talking this through with Kay, but
that's all
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I found too many (for my comfort) false positives and false negatives
with this method.
Presumably because you were doing other things with the computer at the
same time? When run inside chroot in chapter 6, unless you're directly
fiddling with files (or installing m
Chris Staub wrote:
It would really be nice if the book had more documentation on the book
itself - how it got to be the way it is (besides having to search the
mailing lists).
Ah, yes, "The Design and Evolution of LFS" (with apologies to Bjarne
Stroustrup). :-)
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscra
Ag Hatzim wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:32:59PM -0500:
Snip
I think we really should look at including it sometime in the future,
whether it starts with a hint or a separate branch or whatever.
Ok lets give an end to these eternals debates (although i
Ah, yes. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything LFS.
I personally think it's more than just building a minimal working
system, and I think there are others that will agree with me there. That
should be shown by the fact that there are and continue to be such
packages as
Matthew Burgess wrote:
# Populate /dev with all the devices that are already available,
# and save it's status so we can report failures.
udevstart || failed=1
According to the latest (076) version I don't think the above invocation
of `udevstart' is required anymore.
>
>
> >
> > Ah, yes. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything LFS.
> > I personally think it's more than just building a minimal working
> > system, and I think there are others that will agree with me there. That
> > should be shown by the fact that there are and continue t
Hi guys,
I think the most elegant way for a fake root is really the
unionfs way. You don't need to change any line in LFS doc,
only a few words and requirements at the beginning.
This should be discussed.
regards
- Bernd
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PR
Kev Buckley wrote:
Ah, yes. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything LFS.
I personally think it's more than just building a minimal working
system, and I think there are others that will agree with me there. That
should be shown by the fact that there are and continue to be
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>>> # Populate /dev with all the devices that are already
available,
>>> # and save it's status so we can report failures.
>>> udevstart || failed=1
>>
>>
>> According to the latest (076) version I don't think the above
>> i
Matthew Burgess wrote:
3. mkdir /lib/udev/devices &&
ln -s /proc/self/fd /lib/udev/devices/fd &&
ln -s /proc/self/fd/0 /lib/udev/devices/stdin &&
ln -s /proc/self/fd/1 /lib/udev/devices/stdout &&
ln -s /proc/self/fd/2 /lib/udev/devices/stderr &&
ln -s /proc/kcore /lib/udev/devices
A new ppc LiveCD has been released! Due to the limited number of
machines at our disposal, development of the ppc LiveCD moves a little
slower than the x86 versions. However, we have merged the once separate
x86 and ppc build scripts into one, allowing general development of the
ppc CD to move
Here's a patch that fixes up the bootscript to work with udev-076 the
way I think upstream intend it to be used. In addition to that patch
you'll need to run:
mkdir -p /lib/udev/devices &&
ln -sf /proc/self/fd /lib/udev/devices/fd &&
ln -sf /proc/self/fd/0 /lib/udev/devices/stdin &&
ln -sf /pr
Matt,
I have the package that Kay put together at
http://ftp.jg555.com/udev. This has mostly been converted to LFS except
for 2 files.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello guys,
>
> I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> But is there a problem if I use
> the latest kernel version ?
>
> Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
> and latest kernel version differs?
It's perfectly fine as far as I know. Ev
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Matt,
>I have the package that Kay put together at
> http://ftp.jg555.com/udev. This has mostly been converted to LFS except
> for 2 files.
>
Just a quick look, but the Makefile has:
install: device_dirs device_link rules scripts boot
.PHONY: all install device_dirs devi
Matt Darcy wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, yes. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything
>> LFS. I personally think it's more than just building a minimal working
>> system, and I think there are others that will agree with me there.
>> That should be shown by the fact that there are and cont
Thanx Bruce, got it fixed.
--
--
[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
Matthew Burgess wrote:
mkdir -p /lib/udev/devices &&
ln -sf /proc/self/fd /lib/udev/devices/fd &&
ln -sf /proc/self/fd/0 /lib/udev/devices/stdin &&
ln -sf /proc/self/fd/1 /lib/udev/devices/stdout &&
ln -sf /proc/self/fd/2 /lib/udev/devices/stderr &&
ln -sf /proc/kcore /lib/udev/devices/core &&
m
> > 3) First I recompiled Xorg 7-RC2 modular on a non-ssp system (the old
> > xorg6.8.2 monolith loves to take forevor and crash all of the time). Which
> > then returned the following error when I call startx: "Cannot Call Assert".
> > So, I tried again, this time without using PIC patches, hacks
On 11/30/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> > I found too many (for my comfort) false positives and false negatives
> > with this method.
>
> Presumably because you were doing other things with the computer at the
> same time? When run inside chroot in cha
> I am no expert, but perhaps the library you are linking with at compile
> time is different from the one that is loaded at runtime?
>
> Bruce
>
That could be it indeed!
I am doing one thing that others probably aren't.
I trashed the /usr/bin/X11R6 directories and made Xorg's
home(or prefix)
Andrew Benton wrote:
So, we used to use the make_extra_nodes function to create these links
and now we create them in /lib/dev/udev and get the bootscript to copy
them into /dev? Aren't you just repainting the bikeshed? Works for me.
Nice bikeshed.
But the difference is, this is the colour
Hi,
maybe you can tell me why we don't include this versions in LFS 6.1.1
like Greg do it??
They are stable and so there should not be any problems??
PS: I think we are too conservative about that.
Please tell me ...
regards
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: htt
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi,
maybe you can tell me why we don't include this versions in LFS 6.1.1
like Greg do it??
They are stable and so there should not be any problems??
PS: I think we are too conservative about that.
Please tell me ...
regards
--http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/lis
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi,
maybe you can tell me why we don't include this versions in LFS 6.1.1
like Greg do it??
If you'd have been following the list since the time when we decided on
making a LFS-6.1.1 release, you'd have known that its only goal was to
fix the known bugs with LFS-6.1
Matthew Burgess wrote:
If you'd have been following the list since the time when we decided on
making a LFS-6.1.1 release, you'd have known that its only goal was to
fix the known bugs with LFS-6.1
Oh yeah, and LFS-6.1.1 was planned to be achieved under a very short
release schedule, due to
Hi to all,
sorry but as I know this release is bug fix release,
but this stuff has nothing to do with the
of any glibc/kernel stable versions. I think we should
upgrade to these stable versions before releasing ...
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
kernel 2.6.14.x + glibc
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
kernel 2.6.14.x + glibc 2.3.5 ...
Like I said before,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/ has those upgrades
already in place, except for linux-2.6.14.3, which should make it in
some time this w
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 22:16, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
> LFS 6.1.1. This release includes fixes for all known errata since
> LFS-6.1 was released 4 months ago.
>
> You can read the book online at
> http://www.linuxfromscr
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:34:09PM +0100, Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
>
> My general.ent from LFS/branches/6.1.1/BOOK still says:
Use the tag, not the branch.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/h
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:34:09PM +0100, Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
My general.ent from LFS/branches/6.1.1/BOOK still says:
Use the tag, not the branch.
Which begs a question...we can get rid of the branch now, right? And
doing so would prevent confusion, right? i.e. branc
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
My general.ent from LFS/branches/6.1.1/BOOK still says:
Is this my failure or did someone forget to update the file general.ent?
I'm using anonymous svn, probably it's a few hours behind?
Unless you checked out the repository new you will have an incorrect
version.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Unless you checked out the repository new you will have an incorrect
version. A new tagged branch was created to house the released 6.1.1
A tagged branch eh? That's a new one on me :-)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscra
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:35:47PM +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Which begs a question...we can get rid of the branch now, right?
Correct. If the branch is needed for some as yet unexpected 6.1.2
branch, then it's existence in the current revision is still of no
value. Just update trunk/OLD_B
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1.1. This release includes fixes for all known errata since
LFS-6.1 was released 4 months ago.
You can read the book online at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1.1/ or download it from
http://www.linuxfroms
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 22:33, Archaic wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:34:09PM +0100, Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
> > My general.ent from LFS/branches/6.1.1/BOOK still says:
>
> Use the tag, not the branch.
Ah...
svn switch svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/tags/6.1.1/BOOK/
is my friend
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Given the fairly minor changes required to get this all working, I'm not
> sure it's worth setting a branch up for this stuff. This, of course,
> assumes I've not missed something!
Nothing major, but:
> - # Now, create some required files/directories/devices
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
+ cp -R /lib/udev/devices/* /dev
Shouldn't that be "cp -a", to preserve UID/GID/permissions?
Good catch, thanks!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the a
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi to all,
sorry but as I know this release is bug fix release,
but this stuff has nothing to do with the
of any glibc/kernel stable versions. I think we should
upgrade to these stable versions before releasing ...
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
A tagged branch eh? That's a new one on me :-)
Sure, I make my own terms up all the time. You never noticed? ;)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Matt Darcy([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:44:48AM +:
Sometimes i am trying to
>
>
> so you mean the lfs-development book then..
>
In fact i was talking for an entirely different concept with different
priorities but with just one target.
To improve the LFS projects.
However
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
I'm getting this in cross-lfs as soon as it gets out.
Like I said when you mentioned this last week, Jim, I'd prefer LFS to
get this feature first, after all necessary discussions have taken
place. I realise that you've been talking this through w
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I found too many (for my comfort) false positives and false negatives
with this method.
It will work for Ch 6 only as long as we are installing it inside
chroot. But I meant more in terms of using it for package management.
The above technique gave me the followi
On 11/30/05, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> > It will work for Ch 6 only as long as we are installing it inside
> > chroot. But I meant more in terms of using it for package management.
> > The above technique gave me the following problems:
> > 1. When reinstal
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> > But is there a problem if I use
> > the latest kernel version ?
> >
> > Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
> > a
49 matches
Mail list logo
