Re: Util-Linux _NG 2.16-rc2

Hey lfs-dev, I just ran through the development chapter 5 without any problems. Just on the subject of util-linux-ng, there's this small section in chapter 5 near the bottom: Install the shared libraries required by E2fsprogs: make -C shlibs/uuid install make -C shlibs/blkid install Since

Re: Util-Linux _NG 2.16-rc2

Well, I'm home sick and have nothing better to do. I'll try my chapter 6 with a toolchain lacking util-linux-ng and see what happens. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:06:43 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Matthew Burgess wrote: >>> On Tue, 14 Jul 200

Re: Util-Linux _NG 2.16-rc2

> Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > The user can either open another window or change to another virtual > termional, > cd to /mnt/lfs/wherever, and use the host's more or less. > > Pun intended. Awesome > > Now that you point this out, I'm not sure any of the programs in util-linux-ng > are needed in Cha

Re: Util-Linux _NG 2.16-rc2

The whole build went without error over here with the proposed modifications! Jonathan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: LFS-6.5-RC2 released

Goodie, I can't wait to build it this weekend! On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Matthew Burgess wrote: > >> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of >> LFS Version 6.5 Release Candidate 2. > > Matt,  Did you get a chance to look at tickets 2445 a

toolchain readjustment methods

Hey there lfs-dev! I've been building a few systems on and off throughout the year. Right now I'm sitting down and making one that I actually intend to use for a while with the current svn. I tend to deviate from the book here and there usually anyway, but there was one difference that I thought

Re: grammar correction chap 4.1 LFS 6.6

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, stosss wrote: > > Writing UNIX wrong isn't a violation of grammar. Getting grammar wrong > shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of the language and that > reflects poorly on the writer. > > What I find really sad is this project is about two years older then

Re: grammar correction chap 4.1 LFS 6.6

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote: >> > >> > I stopped reading right here.  It is their book. > > Absolutely disagree. > > This book doesn't belong to none specific. It has been written to show > to the world how to make a usable operating system from plain sources

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > > What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib > => /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and > no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it just looks like an ugly > hack. I'd much rather (for aesthetic r

Re: Possible system changes

I like this change. Simplifying /var and removing things that don't really belong in /dev sounds positive to me. So if I'm understanding this correctly, /run will also eventually supersede /var/run altogether. Should we consider a compatibility symlink? Jonathan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/

Status of HLFS project

Hi, what is the current HLFS status? Is project temporary stopped or is it completely dead? It obviously is not in active development. What are we waiting for? How can I, HLFS (Glibc) user help you to bring HLFS further? - Mordae -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hl

Re: Status of HLFS project

Hi, >>> It's active, but I seem to be the only maintainer and I work 55 hours >>> per week. >> I don't have exactly *much* time either, but I'd like to help you. Alas, >> I'm not much C-positive. So, first I'm going to study new HLFS features >> and then I'll build to see how it goes. > Well I'd l

5.2. Embryo Toolchain - Stages differs (ggc-common.o)

Hi, I tried to build 5.2. last night and got this error (./ggc-comon.o differs). Very similar problem has already been reported according google in so I followed Robert's hint to CFLAGS="-fno-stack-protector -no-pie",

Re: 5.2. Embryo Toolchain - Stages differs (ggc-common.o)

> so I followed Robert's hint to CFLAGS="-fno-stack-protector -no-pie", > but I end up with another error. It is not possible to set CFLAGS like > this as we don't include SSP and PIE in stage1 xgcc so it fails as it > don't know anything about them. Correction: It *is* possible to build this way.

Re: util-linux using libcrypto

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I've re-written that ugly patch and post this one. It +/- integrates to the build system (and you won't tell it from that messy stuff there). To enable it, just edit MCONFIG and sed -e 's/^HAVE_OPENSSL=no/HAVE_OPENSSL=yes/' ./con

Re: cryptodev

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Alex, > Anyway, this is altogether too deep a discussion over the adding of a > simple option :-P That option is there since you noticed that first time... :] Anyway, current version can be found at

Re: util-linux using libcrypto

Hi, > It shouldn't be hard to remove libcrypt from glibc We'll have to build it later as it defines crypt(). Maybe we could only replace it's MD5 algo with OpenSSL's and build it separately once libcrypto is in place... # EOF -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://w

Re: util-linux using libcrypto

Hi, another think I just found out. Glibc's sunrpc has it's own impl of DES. As noted in sunrpc/des_impl.c: Collected from libdes and modified for SECURE RPC by Martin Kuck 1994, funny huh? :] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org

Re: Using assert(3) to deal with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE warnings

Robert Connolly wrote: > Hello. Does it seem reasonable to use: > - fwrite (...); > + assert(fwrite (...)); > ... > to deal with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE warnings with fwrite(), dup(), chdir(), > fchown(), fgets(), write(), mktemp(), mkstemp(), mkdtemp(), and friends who Seems very reasonable, but upstr

Package Management notice in 6.1

EHLO, > 6.1. Introduction > [...] > For a package management method specifically geared towards HLFS, we > recommend [...]/hints/downloads/files/more_control_and_pkg_man.txt. If this is true, shouldn't instructions in the book be adjusted to make installation in such conditions painless? Some tim

Re: hlfs fwrite changes to binutils and gcc

Hi, > Move > to , include the vanilla header in the new > , then redefine the functions with assertions... unless NDEBUG is > defined. This would be a lot easier to work with, as a sysadmin, and would > work transparently with all packages. The only problem is that we will get errors even whe

Re: Possible security issue with blowfish shadow passwords

Kevin Day wrote: >> - Linux-PAM (set passwords to blowfish as pam seems to handle them) >> password = abcd >> 4) abcd = pass >> 5) abcde = pass Maybe this piece of code from modules/pam_unix/support.c:709? /* * Note, we are comparing the bigcrypt of the password with * the contents of the pass

Re: debugging strategies

Robert Connolly wrote: > GDB doesn't build, or doesn't work? For me it does build, but fails like this: $ cat >>gdb-test.c < search starts here: /usr/local/include /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/include /usr/include End of search list. GNU C version 4.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) co

Util-linux to use OpenSSL for MD5

Hi there again, reworked patch for Util-linux. The patch can be downloaded from http://jh.gvn.cz/~jd870911/hlfs/openssl/util-linux-2.12r-openssl-2.patch and patch to the book is attached for discussion. This relates to quite old thread (can't find it right now) about making everything in the

Re: Util-linux to use OpenSSL for MD5

I do apologize, some errors crawled in. http://jh.gvn.cz/~jd870911/hlfs/openssl/util-linux-2.12r-openssl-3.patch Index: chapter06/util-linux.xml === --- chapter06/util-linux.xml(revision 1042) +++ chapter06/util-linux.xml(wor

Gawk-3.1.6 LC_MESSAGES and LANGINFO_CODESET

Hi, In Gawk-3.1.6, LC_MESSAGES and LANGINFO_CODESET are detected/set during configure, so the cat to config.h isn't needed anymore. Bye Erik-Jan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Perl ch5 patch

ymbol that has been set in the hints/linux.sh-file. -U symbol= : symbol gets completely empty We set the three symbols so perl will use the libc and the headers in /tools and not those on the host. We unset the local searchpaths so the host won't be searched for the same reasons. Bye Eri

Re: Where we're going, and how we got there, so far.

On Thursday 02 October 2008 04:51:41 Robert Connolly wrote: > I wanted to use the > wiki for this, but until then I'll use svn. I finally had some time to look into that. So... take a look at http://anilinux.org/~mordae/wiki/ and throw in some comments. TODO: * user management *

Cross-LFS 5.10. Glibc-2.3.5 typo?

=HOST cross-compile to build programs to run on HOST [BUILD] Bye Erik-Jan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: Cross-LFS 5.10. Glibc-2.3.5 typo?

Jim Gifford wrote: Erik-Jan wrote: Hi there, In cross-LFS, chapter 5.10 Glibc-2.3.5, configure, the book says: --host=${LFS_HOST} --build=${LFS_TARGET} Shouldn't that be the other way around? --host=${LFS_TARGET} --build=${LFS_HOST} From ./configure --help: --build=BUILD configure for bui

cross-lfs: small possible purity-issue with libgcc_s

6-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/ - sed/patch the source (gcc/gcc.c) so the hard-codes /usr/lib gets replaced by /tools/lib: sed -i "/standard_exec_prefix_/s%/usr%/tools%g" gcc/gcc.c My preference would be the sed/patch, because it removes all the hardcoded host-dirs from gcc's search-path.