Matthew Burgess schrieb:
> Martin Ereth wrote:
>
>> 2) As a not that experienced user you would install (make install)
>> every package you
>> compiled as root. So you have to get problems when you do this
>> installing the
>> temporary system (chapter 5) later on. Maybe you can add a explicit
>>
Martin Ereth wrote:
> There is sed -e'[EMAIL PROTECTED]@MD5_CRYPT_ENAB yes@' ...
> Why is there the dot between MD5_CRYPT_ENAB and no? Maybe it works with the
> dot, but
> why isn't there the exact character, a space? I looked in my /etc/login.defs
> and
> MD5_CRYPT_ENAB was set to no! I'm sure
I have problem with compilation sysklogd package. I have this errors:
---
gcc -O3 -DSYSV -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -fno-strength-reduce
-DALLOW_KERNEL_LOGGING -c syslog.c
syslog.c:85: error: expected declaration specifiers or '..
El Jueves, 24 de Agosto de 2006 02:06, Martin Ereth escribió:
>
> 1) The md5sum (and maybe the sha1sum, too) of the grub disk geometry patch
> was wrong. Maybe this is reported, yet.
You downloaded it from an FTP mirror, right?
The one in
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/6.2/grub-0.9
M.Canales.es wrote:
The patch was updated to fix the date after the LFS-6.2 book was released,
Oh dear. It was updated after the book was released but the version
number didn't get bumped, so now the md5s differ between what's in the
released book and what's on the server? That's not nice!
El Jueves, 24 de Agosto de 2006 20:24, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Oh dear. It was updated after the book was released but the version
> number didn't get bumped, so now the md5s differ between what's in the
> released book and what's on the server? That's not nice! Can someone
> revert that ch
Hi folks.
I recently posted a message to the bug-coreutils mailing list to see if
we could get our i18n and uname patches committed upstream, or at least
get feedback on what needs to be done in order to get equivalent fixes
available in upstream tarballs.
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/b
On 8/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
M.Canales.es wrote:
> The patch was updated to fix the date after the LFS-6.2 book was released,
Oh dear. It was updated after the book was released but the version
number didn't get bumped, so now the md5s differ between what's in the
rel
El Jueves, 24 de Agosto de 2006 20:51, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> Sorry. I made the change. However, it went in before 6.2 was released.
Oh, yes. I read badly the diff. The one in the FTP mirrors is the old one.
>
> What's the best procedure forward on this one? The mirroring confuses me.
I th
On 8/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks.
I recently posted a message to the bug-coreutils mailing list to see if
we could get our i18n and uname patches committed upstream, or at least
get feedback on what needs to be done in order to get equivalent fixes
available in ups
On 8/24/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
El Jueves, 24 de Agosto de 2006 20:51, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> What's the best procedure forward on this one? The mirroring confuses me.
I this case I think that Justin should to update the patch manually.
Do the other servers mirror off
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 07:46:02PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 4) We currently use a sed to avoid a supposed buffer overflow in
> translated versions of `who'. This is unnecessary now as it's been
> fixed in a different manner, so the sed can be removed from the book.
From what I read of th
El Jueves, 24 de Agosto de 2006 21:03, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Do the other servers mirror off of Justin's server? How does this work?
Justin update the master one, then the others mirrors are sync using rsync,
like the web mirrors.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: htt
Dan Nicholson wrote:
The problem (I think) is that since I didn't bump the patch version
number, the updated version wasn't pushed out to the mirrors. But,
then, I don't really know how the mirroring works.
Yeah, some of the packages and patches are maintained by hand, some by
file name, etc, so
M.Canales.es wrote:
I this case I think that Justin should to update the patch manually.
Sure thing, done! I'll have to rebuild the 6.2 tarball too, but meh, we
don't have it signed or anything so no big deal.
Justin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/lfs/conglomeration/grub $ md5sum grub-0.97-disk*
2d29c8
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Do the other servers mirror off of Justin's server? How does this work?
I have an ssh account on the rsync.osuosl.org server, and I update a
master file repo there for LFS, CLFS, HLFS and BLFS. I have various
scripts to maintain the tarballs, symlinks, md5sum everything, e
El Sábado, 19 de Agosto de 2006 16:51, Chris Staub escribió:
> Note: A similar warning should be added to the ALFS webpage, saying that
> you should not even attempt ALFS until you can successfully build a
> system manually without errors and without any help from support
> channels, and that any
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Sábado, 19 de Agosto de 2006 16:51, Chris Staub escribió:
Note: A similar warning should be added to the ALFS webpage, saying that
you should not even attempt ALFS until you can successfully build a
system manually without errors and without any help from support
channels
On 8/24/06, Justin R. Knierim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Do the other servers mirror off of Justin's server? How does this work?
I have an ssh account on the rsync.osuosl.org server, and I update a
master file repo there for LFS, CLFS, HLFS and BLFS. I have various
scripts
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Great. Now that I understand how this works, I'll be less inclined to
screw it up in the future. Or, I'll know when I'm screwing up and tell
you about it.
No worries. :) If there is something like this I missed or so on, just
drop me a line at this address or [EMAIL PROTEC
I've just added the patch to the repo
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/coreutils/coreutils-5.97-uname-2.patch
Old uname patch
---
# uname -a
Linux build 2.6.17.8 #1 Thu Aug 17 08:18:42 PDT 2006 i686 athlon-4 i386
GNU/Linux
Without uname patch
---
# uname -a
Lin
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I've just added the patch to the repo
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/coreutils/coreutils-5.97-uname-2.patch
>
> Old uname patch
> ---
> # uname -a
> Linux build 2.6.17.8 #1 Thu Aug 17 08:18:42 PDT 2006 i686 athlon-4 i386
> GNU/Linux
>
> new uname
Matthew Burgess wrote:
2) The i18n patch isn't going to be accepted in its current state,
which I already suspected. It's incomplete and makes the code harder
to maintain. I'm currently waiting on feedback on how to proceed from
here.
Either disagree with the maintainers (because it is simp
Fedora is building everything with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. I hoped they fixed the
warnings in some packages, but at least with Binutils they have not. But they
also do not add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to gcc specs, they patch Makefile's one
by one or use CFLAGS.
This url explains this warning a bit:
ht
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Also note that the patch exists for 5 years (!!!) and is still not in
the acceptable shape. Looks like parties (like RedHat and LSB) that are
interested in the results that the patch gives are perfectly OK with the
deviation.
Maybe those parties are OK with devia
25 matches
Mail list logo
