in the current development the documentation for gawk was added by
'mkdir' and 'cp'. most other packages use 'install' when copying
additional files.
i already added the install statements for gawk 4.0 in my own scripts.
so i'd like to know why you use copy instead of install here. install
has th
- Mail original -
> De: "Matt Burgess"
> À: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Envoyé: Mercredi 6 Juin 2012 08:58:30
> Objet: Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
>
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 08:07 +0200, g@free.fr wrote:
>
> > Except I say there is more perl scripts as I reported only the on
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:32:04 +0100
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I have built linux-3.4.1 in five machines. No problems, as with the
> unstable 3.4.0, which required a patch or sed for one of the machines.
>
> One can see in https://www.kernel.org/:
>
> "Latest Stable Kernel:
> Download
>
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> in the current development the documentation for gawk was added by
> 'mkdir' and 'cp'. most other packages use 'install' when copying
> additional files.
>
> i already added the install statements for gawk 4.0 in my own scripts.
> so i'd like to know why you use copy instead
--- Em qua, 6/6/12, Andrew Benton escreveu:
> De: Andrew Benton
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] linux-3.4 needs patch to build
> Para: lfs-dev
> Data: Quarta-feira, 6 de Junho de 2012, 7:52
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:32:04 +0100
> Fernando de Oliveira
> wrote:
[...]
> > One can see in https://www.kernel.
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> --- Em qua, 6/6/12, Andrew Benton escreveu:
>
>> De: Andrew Benton
>> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] linux-3.4 needs patch to build
>> Para: lfs-dev
>> Data: Quarta-feira, 6 de Junho de 2012, 7:52
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:32:04 +0100
>> Fernando de Oliveira
>> wrote:
>
> [.
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:57:21 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I suggest this topic be dropped as moot. The discussion doesn't add
> anything and we are agreed that today 3.4.1 is the latest stable version.
On the contrary, I think it's important that folks here understand a bit
about the kernel deve
On 06-06-2012 13:17, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:57:21 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
[...]
> So, LFS uses Linus' non-RC mainline releases when they come out, followed by
> Greg K-H's stable releases up until Linus' next non-RC mainline release is
> made.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mat
xinglp wrote:
> When initramfs is used (as in the below URL), /run is aready mounted.
> Then, if u save somethings under /run before switch_root,
> u will not see them since /run is over mounted by mountvirtfs.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/initramfs.html
What happens
2012/6/7 Bruce Dubbs :
> xinglp wrote:
>> When initramfs is used (as in the below URL), /run is aready mounted.
>> Then, if u save somethings under /run before switch_root,
>> u will not see them since /run is over mounted by mountvirtfs.
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/
We have the switch --disable-perl-regexp which is fine, but the
explanation is no longer correct. It says:
This ensures that the grep program does not get linked against a Perl
Compatible Regular Expression (PCRE) library that may be present on the
host but will not be available once we enter t
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:57 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> If the user has been following the instructions correctly, it will be
> impossible to link against host libs at this point.
So, why then do you think
> We have the switch --disable-perl-regexp which is fine
Surely if we can't find/l
On 6/6/12 3:24 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> Surely if we can't find/link against host libs at this point, that flag
> is at best superfluous and at worst a potential danger as it may mask us
> being able to link against host libs when we shouldn't be able to?
Yep - agreed on all points. Superfluous.
Hi,
I apologize for the lack of proper in-reply-to headers for this, I
don't normally read lfs-dev mailing list.
Ken Moffit wrote at Thu May 31 17:18:25 MDT 2012:
>> And:
>>
>> https://github.com/nenolod/pkgconf
>>
>
> Under development, but no releases and only a zip file for casual
> browsers
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 04:48:34PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I apologize for the lack of proper in-reply-to headers for this, I
> don't normally read lfs-dev mailing list.
>
> Ken Moffit wrote at Thu May 31 17:18:25 MDT 2012:
[wearing my pedant's hat ]
s/fi/fa/ : in my case, the s
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:41:39PM -0700, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> That doesn't explain why it gets run in this particular case though.
> We're editing configure, which should set its mtime to "right now",
> which should be later than configure.ac. Unless configure.ac is
> shipping with an mtime
On 6/6/12 7:27 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 1. It may encourage the people who are resurrecting the "drop
> autotools from LFS" suggestion :)
Too late, I'm already encouraged! :P
Seriously though, I really didn't intend to bring up that discussion
again. I only wanted to get rid of popt. :) But that
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> (Major tangent now) My main motive for wanting to keep a very
> lightweight base system isn't so much size on disk as image size (a
> complete base system image). This is a somewhat important consideration
> if you want to be easily transferring / duplicating / manipula
On 6/6/12 9:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> (Major tangent now) My main motive for wanting to keep a very
>> lightweight base system isn't so much size on disk as image size (a
>> complete base system image). This is a somewhat important consideration
>> if you want to be ea
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 6/6/12 9:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> (Major tangent now) My main motive for wanting to keep a very
>>> lightweight base system isn't so much size on disk as image size (a
>>> complete base system image). This is a somewhat important conside
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2. How did you decide on that date and time ?
Um. Yeah. I looked at what "ls -l" with no special configuration was
telling me, and picked a time that was comfortably earlier than the
mtime on aclocal.m4.
This is probably completely unusable for people in other timezones; I
d
On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It's a neat exercise to get it as small as possible. Not very critical
> though when RAM is $4/G, disk is $0.50/G, and even SSDs are down to $1/G.
Again, it's not just about disk space or available RAM. It's about (as
one example) the time it tak
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> 2. How did you decide on that date and time ?
>
> Um. Yeah. I looked at what "ls -l" with no special configuration was
> telling me, and picked a time that was comfortably earlier than the
> mtime on aclocal.m4.
>
> This is probably completely unusabl
23 matches
Mail list logo
