This is in the Change log for the the SVN book that I just rendered
[matthew] - Upgrade to Udev-lfs-198-3 to fix issues with libdrm
installation in BLFS. Thanks to Nico P for the report, and to Armin for
the fix.
In this section has
6.61. Udev-199 (Extracted from systemd-199)
has the informa
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 09:35 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> This is in the Change log for the the SVN book that I just rendered
>
> [matthew] - Upgrade to Udev-lfs-198-3 to fix issues with libdrm
> installation in BLFS. Thanks to Nico P for the report, and to Armin for
> the fix.
>
> In this section
On 04/01/2013 09:49 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 09:35 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> This is in the Change log for the the SVN book that I just rendered
>>
>> [matthew] - Upgrade to Udev-lfs-198-3 to fix issues with libdrm
>> installation in BLFS. Thanks to Nico P for the report, an
Confused again :)
Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty
switch?
from the book...
Workaround a bug so that GCC doesn't install libiberty.a, which is
already provided by Binutils:
sed -i 's/install_to_$(INSTALL_DEST) //' libiberty/Makefile.in
or does just using th
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:16 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> Confused again :)
>
> Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty
> switch?
>
> from the book...
> Workaround a bug so that GCC doesn't install libiberty.a, which is
> already provided by Binutils:
> sed -i 's/insta
On 04/01/2013 11:45 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:16 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> Confused again :)
>>
>> Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty
>> switch?
>>
>> from the book...
>> Workaround a bug so that GCC doesn't install libiberty.a, which is
Baho Utot wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 11:45 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:16 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>>> Confused again :)
>>>
>>> Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty
>>> switch?
>>>
>>> from the book...
>>> Workaround a bug so that GCC doesn't ins
I'd seen comments on the kernel list about bc being required in
3.9, and then forgotten about them (on my desktops I have it anyway,
for xscreensaver). It gets used for kernel/timeconst.h
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2143611/
Now I'm just doing a fresh 7.3 install to test some changes I p
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:48 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
> > On 04/01/2013 11:45 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:16 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> >>> Confused again :)
> >>>
> >>> Is the following still required with this --disable-install-libiberty
> >>> switch?
>
Ken Moffat wrote:
> I'd seen comments on the kernel list about bc being required in
> 3.9, and then forgotten about them (on my desktops I have it anyway,
> for xscreensaver). It gets used for kernel/timeconst.h
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2143611/
>
> Now I'm just doing a fresh 7.3 i
Greetings,
In chapter 5 binutils, --disable-werror exists and the explanation is
there.
However, in chapter 6, if someone is using optimizations, O3
specifically, the build will fail without using --disable-werror.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=918189
The bug comments state th
William Harrington wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> In chapter 5 binutils, --disable-werror exists and the explanation is
> there.
>
> However, in chapter 6, if someone is using optimizations, O3
> specifically, the build will fail without using --disable-werror.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I think users who change the optimization to something other than
what's
in the book are on their own.
I agree, and they should be able to find bug reports about it.
As it is fixed mainline, all should be well in the future.
It will be noted w
On 04/01/2013 04:59:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > I'd seen comments on the kernel list about bc being required in
> > 3.9, and then forgotten about them (on my desktops I have it anyway,
> > for xscreensaver). It gets used for kernel/timeconst.h
> > https://patchwork.kernel.o
On 04/01/2013 04:59:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't mind adding it to LFS. It's one of the first things I build
> because I use it in my scripts for measuring build size.
>
> An additional package to move from LFS might be lsb_release-1.4 to
> complement what we have in Section 9.1.
And I ha
I'm seeing this output from:
grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("/lib");
Seems reasonable, we're removing the /tools prefixes from everything,
right? But the book says I should see:
SEARCH_DIR("/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib")
SEARCH_DIR("/usr/li
Billy O'Connor wrote:
> I'm seeing this output from:
>
> grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
>
> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib")
> SEARCH_DIR("/lib");
>
> Seems reasonable, we're removing the /tools prefixes from everything,
> right? But the book says I should see:
>
> SEARCH_DIR("/tools/i68
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> Just a random note, but I've been building LFS systems using busybox as
> the base system for years now. (I spent several years making that work.
> :)
At risk of taking this even further off-topic ...
Have any of the LFS developers looked at m
18 matches
Mail list logo
