Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Luca wrote:
>> Another bug, manifested in grub-0.97, after applying reiser4 patch:
>> automake --add-missing
>>
>> docs/Makefile.am:3: compiling `kernel.c' with per-target flags requires
>> `AM_PROG_CC_C_O' in `configure.ac'
>> /usr/share/automake-1.10/am/depend2.am:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 12/07/06 00:10 CST:
>
> This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
> multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
> BLFS and integrate the hint there.
-1. I can't see multiple versions of autotools
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 12/07/06 00:10 CST:
This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
BLFS and integrate the hint there.
-1. I can't see multiple vers
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/07/06 06:20 CST:
>
> Isn't it common practice in various distros to include multiple
> autotools packages and install them as autofoo-version?
Dunno, I don't use "various distros". All I know is that Alexander
gave an example of *one* package that may need
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 12/07/06 00:10 CST:
This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
BLFS and integrate the hint there.
-1. I can't see multi
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 12/07/06 06:36 CST:
>
> Yes, except that there is currently no reiser4 page, but it is not my
> point (I could just as well create it in the wiki). The question is
> whether we install /usr/bin/auto* just for beauty (with no intention to
> call it), or
Hello and good afternoon to all.
As promised I tried to send the log-tarball of chapter 6, anyway the
message body is too big.
Note: this try-hash-style-lfs built natively on reiser4 file-system from
a non-capable hash-style host-system (another lfs).
CPU: Authentic AMD64 3300+
cpu MHz 2000.428
In HLFS trunk:
glibc-2.5-dl_execstack_PaX-1.patch does not match MD5SUMS value
NEW MD5SUM: d3c45b9f63a3f0f6cf5847d4ae4f9759
glibc-2.5-localedef_segfault-1.patch does not match MD5SUMS value
NEW MD5SUM: 879fcc4d60526a4796e5d99d5839de38
texinfo-4.8a-tempfile_fix-2.patch not found in the patches
Hi all,
There is a ticket in Trac for an issue with GSView-4.7.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2175
The issue is valid. The new EPS Ghostscript internal versioning
scheme breaks GSView. I found that simply modifying src/gvcver.h
in the GSView sources fixes the issue. I simply substi
El Jueves, 7 de Diciembre de 2006 13:57, M.Canales.es escribió:
> All that missing patches prevent HLFS be build using jhalfs and also
> prevent to update the FTP mirrors.
Sorry, missing patches are actually the ones listed in
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/hlfs/svn/copyerrs
and
http:
Hi all,
This is mostly a note for Tushar, but FYI for others. I'd like to
close out http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1980 by
removing the autoreconf command.
Tushar is assigned to the ticket, so I'll wait a couple of days for
a reply from him.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [
The jhalfs development team is pleased to announce the release of jhalfs-2.1.
New features in this version:
- Better support for CLFS Sysroot book
- Added support for CLFS Embedded book
- Several bugs fixes and code clean-up
The jhalfs-2.1 tarball can be downloaded from
http://www.linuxfr
On 12/7/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
BLFS and integrate the hint there. The rationale is that the current LFS
SVN versions of au
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The question is
> whether we install /usr/bin/auto* just for beauty (with no intention to
> call it), or for a functional purpose. As far as I can remember the past
> discussions, autotools are a part of the development platform that LFS
> aims to be.
You make a goo
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:36:45PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The question is whether the "real" use of autotools in existing projects
> is just assumed to never happen.
Well, I can't say I've thought about it much, but I have fixed autotools
breakage before, in beyond-BLFS programs.
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/07/06 12:04 CST:
>
> You make a good point. The question in my mind is which versions
> (plural) of autotools should be installed? Perhaps the most recent
> version and then a discussion of the issues and a generic "install
> additional versions as required lik
> This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
> multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
> BLFS and integrate the hint there.
Well, I've long wanted to get rid of the autotools from LFS but for purely
selfish reasons (I've never had a need
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 12/07/06 12:26 CST:
>
> If, as it appears, the versions we install in LFS are causing you folks in
> BLFS headaches, I'd prefer to just let you install the version(s) you
> require rather than force the latest version on you resulting in either of
> us having to
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:26:31AM -0700, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Well, I've long wanted to get rid of the autotools from LFS but for purely
> selfish reasons (I've never had a need to use them, so their relatively
> long SBU times caused by their testsuites are rather painful to bear).
And I've
> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 12/07/06 12:26 CST:
>>
>> If, as it appears, the versions we install in LFS are causing you folks
>> in
>> BLFS headaches, I'd prefer to just let you install the version(s) you
>> require rather than force the latest version on you resulting in either
>> of
>>
On 12/7/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The question is
> whether we install /usr/bin/auto* just for beauty (with no intention to
> call it), or for a functional purpose. As far as I can remember the past
> discussions, autotools are a part of the develo
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
>> multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
>> BLFS and integrate the hint there.
>
> Well, I've long wanted to get rid of the autotools from LFS but for purely
> selfi
Building FreeTTS requires the uudecode program in sharutils. It is used
in the "jsapi.sh" script.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 12/07/06 12:26 CST:
If, as it appears, the versions we install in LFS are causing you folks
in
BLFS headaches, I'd prefer to just let you install the version(s) you
require rather than force the latest version on you resulting in e
24 matches
Mail list logo
