Στις Κυρ 04 Ιουν 2006 21:13, ο/η Jim Gifford έγραψε:
> Hey everyone
> The problem is that they will compile, but there is a lot of things
> that also need to be fixed. If you look at the glibc-kern-header.sspec,
> it basically does the same as the headers script. It's going to take a
> long tim
Hello,I'm normaly just a LFS+BLFS user and don't say much on those lists. I read most of lfs-dev though.I have a question of which I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but it felt a bit too much to post to lfs-dev, clfs-dev, hlfs-dev and such...
My question is about the sub-projects.It's
··· Mathijs ··· wrote:
about CLFS,
CLFS can be used to build a "normal" (not cross-compiled) system as
well... most instructions look the same as LFS and as far as I can see
there are not many big differences.
It takes a little longer to compile, but the build-method used is very
clean I think
On 6/5/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the build techniques used in CLFS 2.0 will be radically different
from that of LFS and the current CLFS. We will be doing a complete
sysroot type of build.
Hey, Jim. What's the progress on the sysroot style build? Not that I
have anything
For any readers of lfs-dev who don't also read lfs-book, ticket #1659
needs some comments from various types of system. Basically, we need to
know about chapter 6 gcc or glibc test failures _except_ libmudflap
(gcc) and posix/annexc.out (glibc) failures.
We need data from Intel P2s and P3s (both r
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 6/5/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the build techniques used in CLFS 2.0 will be radically different
from that of LFS and the current CLFS. We will be doing a complete
sysroot type of build.
Hey, Jim. What's the progress on the sysroot style build? Not
On 6/5/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey, Jim. What's the progress on the sysroot style build?
Actually we have the branch up and testing, but we are concentrating on
releasing CLFS 1.0.
http://trac.cross-lfs.org/browser/branches/clfs-2.0/BOOK
Cool. Any major differences?
Cool. Any major differences? Did you guys ever have to deal with the
legendary "libtool can't handle sysroot" problem? Does the toolchain
adjustment change drastically?
Don't rush to answer. I'm just a curious cat.
Joe is the only developer on that right now. I'll ask him to chime in on
th
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Cool. Any major differences? Did you guys ever have to deal with the
> legendary "libtool can't handle sysroot" problem? Does the toolchain
> adjustment change drastically?
>
> Don't rush to answer. I'm just a curious cat.
>
> --
> Dan
I've probably done about a dozen bu
On 6/5/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've probably done about a dozen builds by now and I haven't seen
libtool puke yet.
I've seen it mentioned in mailing lists, but maybe it's not as bad as it seems.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-07/msg00067.html
P.S. Remember the name E
Jim Gifford wrote:
When Justin gets back in town, I'll have him start rendering it.
I'm back! Ok, it is in the normal rendering rotation.
http://cross-lfs.org/view/clfs-2.0/
Justin
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe:
Chris Staub wrote:
1. The hard links to automake and aclocal are not [program]-1.9.6, but
[program]-1.9. Maybe there should be a "version2" entity for automake to
handle this?
2. Perl does not install any en2cxs program.
3. Glibc 2.4 does not have nscd_nischeck. I know that LFS does not use
12 matches
Mail list logo
