Hello developers,
this mail is related to the previous message by Werner LEMBERG where he
documented the -K option of the CVS version of groff. This option allows
one to specify the input encoding, and one can use construction like the
following in order to get a formatted manual page as UTF-8
Hello Federico,
Man-1.6c contains a French translation of the man2html.1 manual page.
But, it is in the UTF-8 encoding, not in ISO-8859-1, and the standard
Groff doesn't accept UTF-8 input. How do you view this manual page?
Please mail your man.conf.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linux
On 1/24/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I have it fixed now. If you all could just verify it for me,
> please. Also, has anyone looked at this in Konqueror or Safari? Curious
> if it looks alright in those.
Well, this isn't what you asked for, but it looks fine on IE-6 a
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Well, this isn't what you asked for, but it looks fine on IE-6 and
Firefox-1.5. However, the main page ain't too wiki like right now.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/ is just a page that says
anduin.linuxfromscratch.org with links to sources and ISOs. Intended?
You can
Jeremy wrote:
> I think I have it fixed now. If you all could just verify it for me,
> please. Also, has anyone looked at this in Konqueror or
> Safari? Curious
> if it looks alright in those.
>
> --
> JH
Looks great in IE, Jeremy. :) Unfortunately, the box I'm on only has IE 6
(6.0.2900.2180.x
On 1/24/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, if you could spell out your steps exactly when doing an ICA (or
> point me to the thread if you've said before and I missed it) that might
> help - more might offer to start running the comparisons.
Fortunately, I have an unpacked se
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:24:13AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Also, as Greg once mentioned, I'm a little interested in putting
> > ICA/farce support usage into jhalfs. That too, might make the work a bit
> > easier. If you feel like helping with that as well... ;)
>
> I'd be glad to contribut
On 1/24/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Russell wrote:
> > On 1/24/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>What is the ip address of your system?
>
> > At home it is 24.249.5.137
>
> You were blocked for excessive downloads. You downloaded two LiveCD
> isos. I proba
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The answer "patch
> glibc so that iconv transliterates the bullet to 'o'" is better (and in
> fact this is doable), but I think that users of non-Glibc systems (or
> old Glibc) will complain if this becomes the official answer.
Why should they complain? They can use
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:25:10AM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >Well, this isn't what you asked for, but it looks fine on IE-6 and
> >Firefox-1.5. However, the main page ain't too wiki like right now.
> >http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/ is just a page that says
> >andu
When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, but we
don't enable it by default. Is there a reason why?
I would *recommend* :) that we change this. It took me 45 minutes to
rebuild FF on a 3GHz system.
-- Bruce
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 11:24:57AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
> didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, but we
> don't enable it by default. Is there a reason why?
>
> I would *recommend* :) that we change t
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I'm 99% certain it's not the XHTML tags.
While it turned out to be CSS issues this time, I'm wouldn't be so sure
about XHTML not causing us problems. Reading
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm just recently was
very enlightening! I'm not proposing we
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> While it turned out to be CSS issues this time, I'm wouldn't be so sure
> about XHTML not causing us problems. Reading
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm just recently was
> very enlightening! I'm not proposing we drop the use of XHTML just yet,
Ouch, M
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/25/06 13:30 CST:
> According to what I read, most FF binaries come with svg built in. I
> now think that it would be expected by most users and shuod be the default.
Done.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Libr
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> This is directed to everyone who has write access to the /srv/www
> area on Anduin.
>
> Is there any reason why you had to pull out the .../files/BLFS
> area. There were production files in there and now the book is broken.
>
> Isn't this something that could have been di
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 01/25/06 15:02 CST:
> Sorry if this caused a problem.
Ah, heck no. I made a typo. I typed in what I thought was the URL
of the Firefox .mozconfig file but I missed, and when I got a 404
error I didn't realize that I had made a typo.
Again, sorry for the noise
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Go ahead and put into LFS whatever you think is appropriate and we'll
"do the right thing" afterward.
OK, this is now in LFS as of r7301.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe:
You don't (well, you do as far as the codepages overlap). It is a screw-up.
Thanks for pointing this out.
-F
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander E. Patrakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 01:25 PM
> To: 'Federico Lucifredi'
> Cc: 'LFS Developers Mailing
Robert,
I saw your query in the uClibc list and the reply.. whoopee, HLFS
now compiles.. uClibc-0.9.28/linux-2.6.14.6 (using jhahlfs)
+MALLOC_GLIBC_COMPAT=y
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above in
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Reading
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm just recently was
> very enlightening! I'm not proposing we drop the use of XHTML just yet,
> especially considering the few reports we've had of broken rendering,
> but at least it's something to consider when
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I looked at the reference and disagree strongly. It is true that xhtml
transitional allows most of the quirks of html, but xhtml strict does
not.
Yes, that's why I didn't make a proposal to revert back to HTML-4.01. I
agree with the author on one point though: We're curre
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Hi again,
Here's some results from my ICA/Farce run of yesterday. They show
that the system will rebuild itself with the exception of a couple
things that probably won't be fixed by me. (stdc++ .la and gch
differences) These exist whether I use the LFS or DIY toolchain.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I looked at the reference and disagree strongly. It is true that xhtml
>> transitional allows most of the quirks of html, but xhtml strict does
>> not.
>
>
> Yes, that's why I didn't make a proposal to revert back to HTML-4.01. I
> agree with th
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
From the current book:
Ah, I was looking at the current website (e.g.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/):
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd";>
That xml declaration shoves IE and Opera into quirks mode.
Additionally, the DTD claims this is an XHTML-1.1 doc but
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Go ahead and put into LFS whatever you think is appropriate and we'll
>> "do the right thing" afterward.
>
>
> OK, this is now in LFS as of r7301.
I think you need to review the text:
"Package Management is an often requested addition to the LFS
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 1) Have the two toolchain bugs (1675 and 1677 - note that 1675's title
> isn't entirely accurate!) fixed in LFS trunk. I'd need to re-read the
> discussions on those two to figure out quite what's wrong and how to fix
> them, or someone else could just post patches and
On 1/25/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> > 1) Have the two toolchain bugs (1675 and 1677 - note that 1675's title
> > isn't entirely accurate!) fixed in LFS trunk. I'd need to re-read the
> > discussions on those two to figure out quite what's wrong and how
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Unfortunately, the *startfile_prefix_spec doesn't work (at least for
> me) on gcc-4.0.2.
How did you test it? I found during my initial research that this spec
doesn't work when placed into an external file and called with eg:
-specs=/tmp/specs. However, it did work when th
On 1/25/06, Matthew Burgess
>
> What I'd like to do now is:
>
> 1) Have the two toolchain bugs (1675 and 1677 - note that 1675's title
> isn't entirely accurate!) fixed in LFS trunk. I'd need to re-read the
> discussions on those two to figure out quite what's wrong and how to fix
> them, or someo
On 1/25/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, the *startfile_prefix_spec doesn't work (at least for
> > me) on gcc-4.0.2.
>
> How did you test it? I found during my initial research that this spec
> doesn't work when placed into an external file
Gu
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 1) Have the two toolchain bugs (1675 and 1677 - note that 1675's title
> isn't entirely accurate!) fixed in LFS trunk. I'd need to re-read the
> discussions on those two to figure out quite what's wrong and how to fix
> them, or someone else could just post patches and I'
jhuntwork wrote:
> Author: jhuntwork
> Date: 2006-01-25 20:45:12 -0700 (Wed, 25 Jan 2006)
> New Revision: 7306
>
> Modified:
>trunk/BOOK/chapter01/changelog.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter05/binutils-pass2.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter06/gcc.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter06/introduction.xml
>trunk
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Temporary wrapper scripts? Hmmm, these are interesting changes to say the
> least. They look completely bogus. You actually tested this stuff before
> committing? Where is the enhanced sanity check needed to verify this
> crucial stage of the build method?
Why do you say this
On 1/25/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
> > Temporary wrapper scripts? Hmmm, these are interesting changes to say the
> > least. They look completely bogus. You actually tested this stuff before
> > committing? Where is the enhanced sanity check needed to verify
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> When did this stuff happen? I missed it completely. This is the
> first time I ever heard of using a wrapper script.
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-January/055024.html
> Also, if you want to use -B, you have to have a trailing slash.
Thanks.
--
JH
36 matches
Mail list logo
