On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Changelog, 2011-04-18.
>
> -- Bruce
Thanks for the reference Bruce, I completely missed it.
From the changelog then:
> [bdubbs] - In Chapter 6, move File to before binutils to prevent some
> configure warnings.
I was curious about these
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 11:42 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > But, your core already appears to contain things that I have no
> > interest in, nor need for. The strength of BLFS has always been
> > that you can pick the things you want. The idea of a 'c
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Changelog, 2011-04-18.
>>
>> Â -- Bruce
>
> Thanks for the reference Bruce, I completely missed it.
>
>
> From the changelog then:
>> [bdubbs] - In Chapter 6, move File to before binutils to prevent some
>> config
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> There are multiple ways of solving a problem. What new problem does
> your suggestion solve?
>
> -- Bruce
Well most of it is just a personal intent of building as many binaries
as possible with the new (and fully tested) gcc. Since file
Nathan Coulson wrote:
> To sum it up, I would hate to lose X. It is a major part of BLFS, and one
> I have spent a lot of time with.
> Firefox/Thunderbird/Java/Apache/PHP/MySQL/OpenOffice[now LibreOffice]/Cups
> are the first things I build when I startup a system.
>
> no personal use for KDE3/K
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> There are multiple ways of solving a problem. What new problem does
>> your suggestion solve?
> I suppose my arguments are a matter of opinion though. I'm in the
> process of a test build with this suggested rearran
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The old way worked OK, but just issued some warnings. Remember that the
> builds in Chapter 6 *are* using the new gcc and binutils that you built
> in Chapter 5.
>
This is true. The difference appears to be about 20 bytes on the file
binary
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The old way worked OK, but just issued some warnings. Â Remember that the
>> builds in Chapter 6 *are* using the new gcc and binutils that you built
>> in Chapter 5.
>>
>
> This is true. The difference appears to be
Small bug due to new kernels (since 2.6.39.1) where the m4 'make
check' has a test failure in test-readlink. Apparently the newer
kernels are returning EINVAL when readlink() is called with a null
string "". The previous behavior was returning ENOENT.
According to the second link below, the next
