Hello all. Thanks for all your work on LFS. Below are two
alternative patches for version-check.sh in LFS 6.6rc2. I needed
something because the glibc version was cut off on both a Debian
testing/squeeze netinst machine with glibc 2.10.2 and Ubuntu 9.10
Karmic machine with glibc 2.10.1.
6.6rc2
Grant Bowman wrote:
> Hello all. Thanks for all your work on LFS. Below are two
> alternative patches for version-check.sh in LFS 6.6rc2. I needed
> something because the glibc version was cut off on both a Debian
> testing/squeeze netinst machine with glibc 2.10.2 and Ubuntu 9.10
> Karmic machi
Grant Bowman wrote:
> I needed
> something because the glibc version was cut off on both a Debian
> testing/squeeze netinst machine with glibc 2.10.2 and Ubuntu 9.10
> Karmic machine with glibc 2.10.1.
Not glibc 2.10.2 / 2.10.1 -- *e*glibc 2.10.x.
That "e" is the problem: they decided to advertis
Hi,
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/readline/readline-6.1-patches/readline61-002
fixes an issue whereby the version numbers didn't get bumped in readline.h.
I've done some quick greps on the source but I can't find where this is
actually used (aside from it simply being set).
Any ideas whether anything
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/readline/readline-6.1-patches/readline61-002
> fixes an issue whereby the version numbers didn't get bumped in readline.h.
>
> I've done some quick greps on the source but I can't find where this is
> actually used (aside from it simply be
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It is used in documentation only(info, html, ps). I don't see why we
> can't go ahead and patch or sed the changes. I prefer seds for simple
> fixes because they tell the user exactly what is being changed in the book.
Thanks Bruce, applied in r9201. I think the sed expr
Greetings Everyone,
I know LFS to date hasn't really expressed much interest in adding in support
for multilib builds, but I figured I'd send out the FYI for anyone out there
who has been experimenting or would like to do so in the future. (The very
minor changes LFS needs in order to build mul
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Greetings Everyone,
>
> I know LFS to date hasn't really expressed much interest in adding in
> support for multilib builds, but I figured I'd send out the FYI for
> anyone out there who has been experimenting or would like to do so in
> the future. (The very minor changes
On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Greetings Everyone,
>>
>> I know LFS to date hasn't really expressed much interest in adding in
>> support for multilib builds, but I figured I'd send out the FYI for
>> anyone out there who has been experimenting or would
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The post was meant as an FYI for anyone currently experimenting on
> that front and a request for any feedback from those who have or are
> interested in finding an answer. The 'Changes for LFS' section on the
> bottom was intended as a hint for anyone willing to experimen
>From: Bruce Dubbs
>Errors seem to be fairly normal except I am not comfortable with the seg
>faults in debugfs. It seems thi sis x86_64 only. Gentoo pointed to a fix:
>--
>081-e2fsprogs:
>f_imagic_fs: imagic filesystem with imagic inodes:
>../../tests/run_e2fsck: line 48: 32032 Seg
Matthias Eck wrote:
>> From: Bruce Dubbs Errors seem to be fairly
>> normal except I am not comfortable with the seg faults in debugfs.Â
>> It seems thi sis x86_64 only. Gentoo pointed to a fix:
>>
> Hi, i suggest trying e2fsprogs-1.41.10. IIRC, Your errors are the
> same like
On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> No problem. I think the idea of a hint is appropriate, but we haven't
> heard from you for a long time. I didn't know if you were up to speed on
> the decision we made.
Yeah, thanks. I needed a serious break. It was good that I did, too. I have
On 2/20/10, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Nate Brown wrote:
>> I completed my first manual LFS build a couple weeks ago using 6.6rc1,
>> and I wanted to give a little feedback to the devs. First and foremost,
>> thank you for enabling me to finally use a version of Linux that I feel
>> 100% at home in. L
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> No problem. I think the idea of a hint is appropriate, but we haven't
>> heard from you for a long time. I didn't know if you were up to speed on
>> the decision we made.
>
> Yeah, thanks.
There is a persistant problem with failing autoconf tests, and since these can
often be quietly replaced by gnu-lib we often don't realize it.
These failed ./configure tests are sometimes from new Glibc
versions, -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE causing functions to be defined as macros and
screwing up tests,
16 matches
Mail list logo
