Hi all,
Well, if have a little bit different question.
As I dont want to install any development tools
in chapter 6 final LFS to keep the rootfs small for embedded purpose,
is it okay to always use the /tools toolchain in
temp chroot system for e.g. BLFS creation??
l also need to change the PAT
Hi all,
as asked before, why dont we devide chapter 6
packages into -- essential / devel (optional) packages??
The devel packages could be a sub chapter of LFS
chap 6 and marked as optional install.
packages e.g. gcc, perl ...
Doing so we can use the temp self hosted chroot
chap 5 toolchain/sys
On 12/21/05, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I killed 2 birds with one stone and added visudo and removed the
> sed. However, I currently have no graphical browser with which to look
> at the output before commit. The relevant page is at:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/blfs-boo
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:17:02PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
>
> Well, if have a little bit different question.
You have a question that you cross posted to many lists. Read the FAQ,
search the mail archives, and stop cross posting.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from you
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
>
> This could really lead to a clean target rootfs approach
> without the need of any devel tools ...
Which would be completely against the stated goal of LFS.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operatin
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 12/21/05 09:27 CST:
> Sorry, that's speculative crap. You might just have to build with it
> and see what the difference is.
I wouldn't mind doing the building and testing, as many times as I
will be in and out of the house doing X-mas shopping today. However
I
Hi,
Well, Archaic as subjected before
we could discuss that.
I think it is
absolutely not against the goal of LFS,
because pointing out how a sane working
system can be created has nothing to do
with any dev-tools installed.
Further more I would like to her
some comments from others on this
tou
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> One place to look is modules/oji/tests/build/README:
>>
>
> People hacking on mozillas java integration are probably capable of
> writing their own mozconfig and thus can set a default-mozilla-five-home
> for themselves. Does it really need to be a d
Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
Hi,
Well, Archaic as subjected before
we could discuss that.
I think it is
absolutely not against the goal of LFS,
because pointing out how a sane working
system can be created has nothing to do
with any dev-tools installed.
Further more I would like to her
some comme
Ok we all know about that nice hint, but
my intend is also educational as well.
Stating out what is essential and what is
optional is really of technical nature.
The problem for me was many month ago to
get to know why we do include this pack
besides the fact of dependency.
A sane system doesn n
Feldmeier Bernd wrote these words on 12/21/05 09:44 CST:
> absolutely not against the goal of LFS,
> because pointing out how a sane working
> system can be created has nothing to do
> with any dev-tools installed.
A "sane working system". Is this what you call a bare-bones
just-finished LFS bui
If you call this that way ok.
But marking some packs as optional
that is really educational in my mind.
The user can decide wether to include that
not essential stuff like devel-packs ...
regards
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von Ran
LFS is source code based distro. So compilers are required. You can't
compare it to binary distros.
I would suggest you take what you like from LFS and Gregs DIY. Develop
a build environment and create what ever kind of binary image you
want. But you really shouldn't demand others to do all the wo
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:06:53 +0100
"Feldmeier Bernd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you call this that way ok.
> But marking some packs as optional
> that is really educational in my mind.
>
> The user can decide wether to include that
> not essential stuff like devel-packs ...
>
>
Bernd,
We
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:17:02PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
Well, if have a little bit different question.
You have a question that you cross posted to many lists. Read the FAQ,
search the mail archives, and stop cross posting.
I generally agree with all the comments t
Richard A Downing wrote:
Bernd,
We've all tried to be friendly, but you are abusing our patience.
WILL YOU FOR GOTTS SAKE STOP TOP POSTING and learn how to trim your
quotes.
In addition, Bernd, please find an email client that does whatever is
necessary to allow sane clients to thread repli
> Archaic Wrote:
>
> Is it a warning or does it not run the tests? Or do the tests run and
> fail?
>
They run anyhow... execscript for example simply has this in it:
if [ $UID -eq 0 ]; then
echo "execscript: the test suite should not be run as root" >&2
fi
I don't know how running as ro
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> I don't know how running as root skews the results, though. I know
> the tests all pass as-is.
It's possible that they do something that's maybe-unsafe when they get
run as root. I don't know for sure, though; I haven't looked into it at
all. Just saying that this is one
I posted a solution in lfs-support. Here is it
In my testing with Cross-LFS, I have found that this works
echo "dummy1:x:1000:" >> /etc/group
echo "dummy:x:1000:1000:::/bin/bash" >> /etc/passwd
cd tests
su dummy -c "sh run-all"
sed -i '/dummy/d' /etc/passwd /etc/group
rm /tmp/*
--
--
[EMAIL
Who hates the perl build system? I do, I do.
OK, so this is very strange and may not be necessary and others don't
seem to have this issue, but...
When building perl in Ch. 6 of the LFS ALPHABETICAL-20051216, I kept
getting the man pages installed in the root directory. This was very
obnoxious,
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> The LFS LiveCD team is proud to announce a new pre-release version of
> the LiveCD.
Speaking of LiveCD...
On the mirrors we have:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /srv/ftp/LFS-LiveCD]$ ll -R
total 2299984
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 370 Dec 20 22:32 MD5SUMS
-rw
Hello Everyone,
The LFS LiveCD team is proud to announce a new pre-release version of
the LiveCD. Since this version of the LiveCD is tracking the LFS
development instructions and is slated for release when the current LFS
development book becomes stable, there will likely be many changes
bet
Well the new modular X has been released. Perhaps its a bit early, but
I took a look at http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/X11R7.0/src/ and
don't know how we are going to approach it. It looks like there are
over 100 separate packages.
The Developers guide is at
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularD
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:13:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Do we have anyone on the list that has started to look at this?
Thomas Pegg has a general structure up already. He just mentioned it in
livecd (don't have the email handy to provide a link, though).
--
Archaic
Want control, educa
http://pastebin.com/474591
2nd pass of gcc 4.0.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ echo 'main(){}' > dummy.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ cc dummy.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ readelf -l a.out | grep ': /tools'
[Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.s
Wade Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ readelf -l a.out | grep ': /tools'
> [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
> have been following devel book verbatim, except using --disable-multilib
> for 1st & 2nd pass gcc compiles
>
> host system is:
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
