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
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
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
I've been analyzing the test errors found when I was building LFS-6.6.
The logs are at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/6.6/
This is a summary:
glibc
annexc - long time errors that can be ignored.
tst-cpuclock2 - this seems to be triggered by a setting in the
kernel fo
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have submitted a patch upstream to the E2fsprogs maintainers to add a
> function to the libcom_err library so that it will be compatible with
> Heimdal. Without the patch to E2fsprogs, Heimdal will end up adding a
> new libcom_err library in /usr/lib and overw
zzf...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 05:36:31PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been analyzing the test errors found when I was building LFS-6.6.
>> The logs are at
>>
>>http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/6.6/
>>
>
ga ho wrote:
> What I am asking is, are there 64 bit versions of the LFS6.6 packages
> that need to be used or will using a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit machine
> automatically build a 64 bit LFS6.6 using all the LFS6.6 source
> packages as is?
1. Trim your posts.
2. This is answered in the book,
ht
stosss wrote:
> The sentence with the minus sign uses the word have when it should be
> using the word has.
Fixed in svn.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
stosss wrote:
> Is there any announcement on the mailing list when the errata page
> gets a correction for the LFS book?
We have not been doing that. I wouldn't do it for anything short of a
major flaw that prevented building or security problem. In that case,
we'd probably put out x.y.1 vesio
Guy Dalziel wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:24:33AM -0500, stosss wrote:
>> - This package contains math libraries and have useful functions for
>> arbitrary precision arithmetic. It is required to build Gcc.
>> + This package contains math libraries and has useful functions for
>> arbitrary pr
stosss wrote:
> I believe it would be correct to drop the "a" inside the parenthesis
> in the last sentence of this chapter.
>
> Linux From Scratch - Version 6.6
> Chapter 4. Final Preparations
>
> 4.1. About $LFS
>
> bottom of page
>
> - Do not forget to check that $LFS is set whenever you lea
tho...@equinox.homelinux.org wrote:
> Is it all bad only to me or do you feel same?
Well, there is always KDE3 which still builds.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
Chris Staub wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 11:41 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> stosss wrote:
>>> I believe it would be correct to drop the "a" inside the parenthesis
>>> in the last sentence of this chapter.
>>>
>>> Linux From Scratch - Version 6.6
&g
David Jensen wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:02:20 -0600
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> There is still an implied 'command' there, as in:
>>
>> as when doing a suu [command] to root.
>>
>> I used suu here to emphasize the pronunciation.
>>
>
Larry Gilbert wrote:
> Guy Dalziel dementedfury.org> writes:
>
>> For Grep in chapter 6 we apply a patch of Debian fixes. It seems,
>> however, that it is this patch that is causing fmbtest.sh to fail.
>> The unpatched Grep passed all 14 tests while the patched one did not. I
>> think that we sho
Chris Staub wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 05:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> David Jensen wrote:
>>> I always use 'an' before soft consonents. It 'may' be incorrect but it
>>> flows off the tongue better.
>> Not in my opinion. The article 'an'
stosss wrote:
> The OP is using Ubuntu and I have seen a lot of other posts in this
> and other mailing lists where there is some strange behavior with
> Ubuntu compared to just about any other distribution.
It's almost always because they don't have the required tools installed
or symlinks sh-
Ken Moffat wrote:
Looking at debian's 2.5.4-4, which I believe is their latest, the patches
are 60, 61, 63,64,65, 66,67 and now 69 (which is newer). If I don't
apply the patches, the testsuite is happy. If I do apply them, it fails
as noted.
Bruce, which patch are you using ?
I downloade
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 10 March 2010 19:37, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I downloaded grep_2.5.4-4.diff.gz and it applied without fuzz. Â All tests
>> passed for me on both LFS-6.5 on a 64-bit system and an older 32-bit system.
>>
>> Â -- Bruce
>>
> Sorry to be ped
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 10 March 2010 20:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On 10 March 2010 19:37, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>> I downloaded grep_2.5.4-4.diff.gz and it applied without fuzz. Â All tests
>>>> passed for me on both LFS-
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On my 6.6 build, I've noticed that the netfs bootscript fails to find
> /bin/fuser
> when shutting down. Â Not a big priority, because I had to comment fuser out
> on previous builds (supposed to be fixed in 22.10, bit not yet confirmed).
>
> Digging through trac, I've eventua
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> i restarted more than once. not only using my scripts which run fine
> when building from an lfs host, but also by cut and paste, thus i don't
> know how or where i could mess up.
Can you paste the output from version-check.sh and uname -a please.
Did you install xubuntu o
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Can you paste the output from version-check.sh and uname -a please.
>>
>> Did you install xubuntu or just run from the CD?
>>
> both.
>
> sorry for my late response, but i'm currently running some more tes
stosss wrote:
Fixed, thanks.
I do have a some continuing problems in typing where I get characters
transposed. form->from, 'th etype'->'the type', etc. I try to
proofread, but don't always catch the errors. The spelling checker
helps, but things like 'form' are valid words.
Pointing out t
Petersen Liman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin)
> Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10)
>
> hQIMA7PFGEn6JMq4AQ/+Nx6NEIMa5PqtGG/kGsYNQc9R4XAwg2I8gz6pa2ghm4rA
This is a public mailing list. Post in plain text.
-- Bruce
-
Chris Staub wrote:
> On the Chapter 6 GCC page, there is this...
>
> Note
> As of version 4.3.0, GCC now unconditionally installs the limits.h file
> into the private include-fixed directory, and that directory is required
> to be in place.
>
> I don't really understand the necessity for this.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:59:21 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2010, at 9:22 AM, James Robertson wrote:
>>
>>> I really like the new design, but agree with Steve here.
>> And I agree with both of you. :)
>
> I'm not sure I do ;)
>
> If we were to move http:/
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Sorry for the noise if it comes through, but David Jensen emailed to me
> saying he hasn't received mail from these two groups in some time, and
> he also sent a test mail.
He didn't register his new email address. I've allowed that address now.
-- Bruce
--
http://l
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Robert Xu wrote these words on 03/28/10 16:38 CST:
>> I'm just having the problem of getting all the emails about 6-10 hours
>> late. Like now, I just got an email sent at 10:24 AM, and it's 5:38 PM now.
>
> I also reported the same exact behavior from the mail server on
>
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I don't know if anyone ever noticed this, but the library version installed
> with bzip2-1.0.5
> is still 1.0.4. Also, the man pages still say 1.0.4. Seems like the
> maintainer just forgot
> to update the Makefile and man sections.
>
> Since everything stil
Thomas Tutone wrote:
> Chap. 3.2 lists the following info for zlib:
>
> Zlib (1.2.3) - 415 KB:
> Home page: http://www.zlib.net/
> Download: http://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.3.tar.bz2
>
> Because of the release of zlib-1.2.4, the zlib home page has removed the
> 1.2.3 download. I suggest ad
srinivas Eranti wrote:
> LinkedIn
This user has been block from the list.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> srinivas Eranti wrote:
>>> LinkedIn
>> This user has been block from the list.
>
> That might be a little hasty. When you sign up for LinkedIn, it tries
> really hard to send invitat
I'm trying to prototype LFS for gcc-4.5.0 and have run into a problem.
I have not yet researched the details, but would like to know if anyone
else has tried gcc-4.5.0 and solved the problem.
gcc pass 2 in Chapter 5 fails as seen below.
I'll continue researching...
-- Bruce
gcc-4.5.0 now n
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> checking whether the target supports .symver directive... yes
>> configure: versioning on shared library symbols is gnu
>> checking whether the target supports __sync_*_compare_and_swap... yes
>>
Trying perl-5.12.0 with the current LFS Chapter 5 instructions, I get
the errors below. I tried with gcc-4.5.0 and then backed off to LFS-6.5
and got exactly the same errors.
I used the commands:
cd perl-5.12.0
sh Configure -des -Dprefix=/tools \
-Dstatic_ext='Data/Dumper Fcntl IO POSIX'
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dubbs"
> To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:05 AM
> Subject: perl-5.12.0
>
>
>> Trying perl-5.12.0 with the current LFS Chapter 5 instruction
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'll continue testing and see if I can get everything else working with
> gcc-4.5
So far I'm up to coreutils in Chapter 6. An interesting result is the
errors in gcc-4.5.0:
FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail31-frag.c (-O3) output pattern test
FAIL: libmudflap.c/pa
I've been working with some new packages:
GCC-4.5.0
Perl-5.12.0
Grep-2.6.3
Kbd-1.15.2
Linux-2.6.33.2
Psmisc-22.11
mpc-0.8.1
All seem to build with some massaging of the instructions
gcc Chapter 5 (both instances) needs to add:
tar -xf mpc-0.8.1.tar.gz
mv mpc-0.8.1 mpc
Perl Chapter 5 needs to
William Immendorf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:48 AM, William Immendorf
> wrote:
>> I think you should just be patient, Bruce. Wait for 2.6.33.3 to come
>> out, and hopefully your system will boot up again.
> Or if you are impatient, try using the attached patch.
>
> I think it fixes the se
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On 16/04/2010 17:31, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'm not sure the fix is fixing the root of the problem or masking it,
>> but that's for the driver developers to decide. I didn't see that fix
>> in 2.6.34-rc4, but it is in 2.6.34-rc4-git4
Ken Moffat wrote:
> But not a showstopper. I could say I prefer the simplicity of the current
> design, but I'd probably be showing my age.
I have to say that I agree. In my mind, the current site is quite
adequate. I'm not going to be 'for' or 'against' a change, but I don't
see the value i
stosss wrote:
> I bet I am older then most here.
Do you remember the '40s?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 16/04/10 18:15, Andrew Benton wrote:
>> make LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/$(uname -m)-unknown-linux-gnu/libgcc/
>> works for me on x86_64 (I've not tried it on a 32 bit build yet).
>>
>
> Building on i686 failed at the first pass of glibc like so:
>
> Googling on that suggest
Jim McConville wrote:
> On Friday 16 April 2010 17:53, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> I have to say that I agree. In my mind, the current site is quite
>>> adequate. I'm not going to be 'for' or 'against' a change, but I don&
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On 16/04/2010 07:03, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been working with some new packages:
>>
>> GCC-4.5.0
>
> Note that this causes a test failure in Bison-2.4.2. It's already been
> reported at
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/
hauradou wrote:
> Is it truely a bug, as stated in the dev book?
>
> After building gcc-4.5.0, found a macro: __i686, expanding to 1
>
> glibc built fine in this chapter after adding 'asm-CPPFLAGS += -U
> __i686' to configparms, without using any patch.
You don't say what your platform is. The
hauradou wrote:
> hauradou wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> hauradou wrote:
>>>> Is it truely a bug, as stated in the dev book?
>>>>
>>>> After building gcc-4.5.0, found a macro: __i686, expanding to 1
>>>>
>>>> gli
hauradou wrote:
> well, the difference between a big patch and just one option to pass to
> the compiler...
I don't consider a 49 line patch big. It is really only adding 8 lines
and the rest is explanation. I believe the patch came from upstream.
As I said before, I think your method is sub
hauradou wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> hauradou wrote:
>>
>>
>>> well, the difference between a big patch and just one option to pass to
>>> the compiler...
>>>
>> I don't consider a 49 line patch big. It is really only ad
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Got some free time tonight. If anyone in interested, the LSB style
> bootscripts are up to date and working as expected. They require Dan
> Nicholson's initd-tools-1.3 which gets us one step closer to LSB
> compliance. Existing bootscripts will work, but all scripts (LFS and
>
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On May 3, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> Hello, Does the Get Counted page work? I came across this thread on
>> Linux Questions
>> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/6-6-went-smoothly-one-minor-thing-805362/
>> Where people seem to
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Moving this here from trac. When I put the ABI=32 note in, I
> screwed up. But it's only 2 weeks ago that anyone noticed.
>
> In the meantime, building for x86_64 is now supported by LFS, so
> the current note could also be misinterpreted.
>
> There is a second issue on the
Ken Moffat wrote:
> First "*and*" - it's emphasised. Are you are using recent kde ?
> Gtk-webkit doesn't do emphasis (looking at epiphany-2.28), gecko does
> (italics in forefox-3.6.3plugin), lynx does (different colour). So, I'm
> reluctant to add '*' for emphasis in the text.
No, that's just
Claus Regelmann wrote:
> I think the attached patch should be made generally available.
> For the time it is not included in the kernel, it fixes a problem
> with arp-packages on networks other than ethernet (at least for Token
> Ring).
We already say:
The Linux kernel is updated relatively ofte
I think we have a problem with gcc-4.5. Every kernel I build with it
segfaults.
My last try was linux-2.6.32.8 which is the stable lfs-6.6 kernel. I
used the identical configuration.
Either we are not building gcc-4.5 correctly or there is a bug in it
that causes the segfault. If I take a k
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think we have a problem with gcc-4.5. Every kernel I build with it
> segfaults.
>
> My last try was linux-2.6.32.8 which is the stable lfs-6.6 kernel. I
> used the identical configuration.
>
> Either we are not building gcc-4.5 correctly or there i
Chris Staub wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 08:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Has anyone else tried building a kernel with gcc-4.5, e.g. lfs-svn?
> I have, and it works fine...
>
> Linux version 2.6.33.1 (r...@chris_laptop) (gcc version 4.5.0 (GCC) ) #1
> Sat May 8 12:33:42 EDT 2010
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 13/05/10 06:56, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Chris Staub wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2010 08:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>> Has anyone else tried building a kernel with gcc-4.5, e.g. lfs-svn?
>>> I have, and it works fine...
>>>
>
linux fan wrote:
> On 5/13/10, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Curious. My next step will be to go back and rebuild everything.
>>
>
> Could there be a difference in gcc-4.5 with respect to which glibc was
> in service at the time it was built that contibutes to "it
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> BTW, on a general gcc note, I don't think the command that we use:
>
> sed -i 's...@\./fixinc\...@-c true@' gcc/Makefile.in
>
> does anything for gcc-4.5. There is no fixinc.sh script that I can find.
Disregard this. The command is
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think I'm going to rebuild gcc inside the new system using blfs
> procedures and then rebuild the kernel to see if that makes any
> difference. I'll also try cutting down the kernel config to the minimum.
>
> I'll post my results when I&#
Ken Moffat wrote:
> So, it's actually init that segfaults ? I suppose that makes sense,
> I think the kernel is privileged enough to do what it wants. I must
> admit, when I read your original post I assumed you meant it was
> panicking.
Well it was panicking because init segfaulted.
bash-st
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 23:53, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> Â So, it's actually init that segfaults ? Â I suppose that makes sense,
>> I think the kernel is privileged enough to do what it wants. Â I must
>> admit, when I read your original post I assumed you meant it was
>> panicking.
>>
> Hm
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I blame gcc-4.5.
>
> Me too, but I got a little further by disabling
>
> # CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE is not set
Success!!
I took a known good config (for 2.6.32.8) and copied that to 2.6.33.4
and only changed the above option. Boots fine now, in
I added a new image to the lfs home page.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
linux fan wrote:
> On 5/15/10, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I added a new image to the lfs home page.
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
>>
>
> I don't know why, but the critter on the left really bothers me.
That's a gnu.
http://www.google.com/images?
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On May 15, 2010, at 1:55 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I added a new image to the lfs home page.
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
>
> It's a fun picture, and I'm all for a little fun in the site. I don't
> think it b
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Moving this here from trac. When I put the ABI=32 note in, I
> screwed up. But it's only 2 weeks ago that anyone noticed.
>
> In the meantime, building for x86_64 is now supported by LFS, so
> the current note could also be misinterpreted.
>
> There is a second issue on the
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 24 May 2010 01:04, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken,
>> Â I haven't seen any activity on this in a couple of weeks. Â Would you
>> like me to add the text you have to the book and handle the ticket?
>>
>> Â -- Bruce
>
> Apart from
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 24/05/10 07:50, Kevin Buckley wrote:
>> I have little issue with repeating an install of an LFS package within
>> BLFS when/if one goes "Beyond" the facilities that LFS really requires
>> of a given package.
>>
>> I am sure that that approach was the LFS vogue at one point
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:50:53 +1200, Kevin Buckley
> wrote:
>
>> Does an LFS system really need XML parsing, from expat or
>> libxml2, as a feature?
>>
>> The suggestion above is that gettext only needs it for Glade support.
>
> That's true. So far, only Glade support i
Andrew Benton wrote:
> It should be export MAKEFLAGS='-j 2' shouldn't it?
Yes.
> Personally I have
> never tried using the MAKEFLAGS variable because I have had problems
> with glibc not installing correctly if make install is run with
> parallel jobs. It compiles fine with make -j4 but I've l
littlebat wrote:
>> It should be export MAKEFLAGS='-j 2' shouldn't it? Personally I
>> have never tried using the MAKEFLAGS variable because I have had
>> problems with glibc not installing correctly if make install is run
>> with parallel jobs. It compiles fine with make -j4 but I've learned
>> to
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> sorry if i'm writing in the wrong list, but book or support seem not to
> fit better...
>
> i try to login into the wiki. i already have an account on lfs and blfs,
> but didn't login for quite a while. now trying to login, i end up in a
> redirection loop. i tried with both
Robert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:51, Burton Strauss III
> wrote:
>> Whenever the next time somebody updates this package, word of warning:
>> SourceForge only has expect-5.44.1.15.tar.gz and expect-5.44.1.15.tar.bz2.
>> So I grabbed them. Bad idea. Expect now requires Tk and Tcl a
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> I made a patch last year that allow to compile 5.44.1.13 without tk.
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=13179&atid=313179
> I changed to use --with-tk=no as --with-x options no more exist if I could
> remember what I have made one year ago.
Thanks. I got the pa
--- Begin Message ---
Be advised there is a problem with 2.6.34 that is documented
here: http://marc.info/?t=12744421821&r=1&w=2
As this is integral to the kern headers, it fouls an otherwise good build.
I suggest providing the patch or using a different kernel.
Marty B.
--- End Messag
Thibaud Fabre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to this list, so first of all, thanks for the great learning
> experience that is LFS.
>
> While attemtping to do a build with the latest packages, I had trouble
> compiling GCC 4.5.0 using MPFR 3.0.0. Compilation fails on 'make' command,
> with report o
Chris Staub wrote:
> On 06/13/2010 10:36 AM, Guillem Pagès Gassull wrote:
>> I was able to build through Chapter 5 without any problems, but when
>> building glibc in Chapter 6, configure failed because the required
>> kernel version is 2.6.22.5, and I was using an older kernel.
>> In the temporar
Andrew Benton wrote:
> I haven't updated my bootscripts lately but today I decided to rectify
> that, I downloaded lfs-bootscripts-20100529 and installed them on a new
> system. They worked fine apart from the mountfs script which returned a
> fail. When I logged in and ran mount -a it complain
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 16/06/10 23:52, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> Andy, I've not had a chance to look at this, but I created a ticket so
>> we won't forget about it.
> I don't have a password to edit the ticket
You do now.
-
Thibaud Fabre wrote:
> As for gmp & mpc, they were present in my gcc src folder. The bug I
> described only occurs when using MPFR v3.0 instead of v2.4.2. Version of MPC
> was 0.8.2 and GMP 5.0.1. GCC compilation will fail even WITH the
> gmp/mpc/mpfr sources present in gcc source folder when make
Yesterday I updated -dev to Module-Init-Tools-3.12. I noticed that the
tarball has a populated directory test/build (about 2.4M, uncompressed)
that is completely unnecessary.
I am looking for opinions whether we should remove the extra cruft
before we do the testing:
rm -r tests/build
then d
Yaacov-Yoseph Weiss wrote:
> Since NIST doesn't host expect anymore, and sourceforge doesn't
> have version 5.43.0, the new download url
>
> (http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/lfs-packages/6.6/expect-5.43.0.tar.gz)
> should probably add to the 6.6 errata page.
OK. Errata added. Th
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:34:55 -0600, Matthew Burgess
> wrote:
>
>> What parameters, exactly, did you pass to get a successful build of GCC
>> with MPFR-3.0.0 in-tree?
>
> --with-gmp-include=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/gmp and
> --with-gmp-lib=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/gm
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Anybody else getting a lot of bounces from blfs-book, resulting in
> delivery becoming disabled ? I seem to get them every few days. No
> visible problems with the other lists.
I get it too occasionally. Don't know why. Slow DNS perhaps?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscr
William Immendorf wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
> wrote:
>> Same problem, I get such mails regularly. Don't know why...
> It happens to me too. Maybe there is some issue over at that list that
> needs urgent fixing?
I don't know what that would be. Right now th
Stuart Stegall wrote:
> I noticed that MPFR 3.0.0 was added to the Development Book. Two
> things I noticed about this:
>
> 1. There are 156 tests now (that's with the patch mentioned in 2 ..)
>
> 2. There's a patch for MPFR 3.0.0: http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/patch01
> The patch is necessar
HouHongxun wrote:
> On 2010年06月24日 00:04, Stuart Stegall wrote:
>> I noticed that MPFR 3.0.0 was added to the Development Book. Two
>> things I noticed about this:
>>
>> 1. There are 156 tests now (that's with the patch mentioned in 2 ..)
>>
>> 2. There's a patch for MPFR 3.0.0: http://www.m
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A French user has just told me something on IRC, I'd like to share with
> you. In this section (cee subject), he doesn't agree, for Linux Kernel
> package description, with "This package is the operating system". He
> explains Linux Kernel is not the system i
I've completed a current SVN build and it builds and boots fine. The
jhalfs SBU report and the test logs can be found at:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/SVN-20100627
gcc has the usual libmudflap errors, but I'm concerned about the glibc
errors.
Automake failures are the usual suspect
HouHongxun wrote:
> In fact, this error had been pointed out by splotz90 in
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2698
> and
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2699
>
> but unfortunately all two tickets have been closed.
>
> so i decide to start a new thread.
Yes, that is the
Kevin White wrote:
> The sed command in the instructions for shadow (in both the 6.6 and SVN)
> sets the password encryption to MD5.
>
> Just by modifying that sed, I changed it to SHA512, which is just one of
> the options that should be more secure than MD5. Everything just worked
> once I m
HouHongxun wrote:
> In chapter 6.16 of LFS book, the output of one gcc sanity check has an
> obvious typo. The check is "*Verify that the compiler is searching for
> the correct header files:*", and the corresponding command is "*grep -B4
> '^ /usr/include' dummy.log*", LFS book says the output sh
HouHongxun wrote:
> 于 2010/6/28 14:39, Bryan Kadzban 写é“:
>> HouHongxun wrote:
>>> "root=/dev/sda7" after kernel's image belongs to kernel's parameters.
>> Right, but irrelevant here, see below. :-)
>>
>>> I don't think grub cares about kernel's parameters. file systems'
>>> uuid and root v
Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 30.06.2010, 13:44 +0100 schrieb Andrew Benton:
>> But it won't boot very far. The kernel won't be able to mount its root
>> partition unless you manually edit the grub.cfg or compile the kernel
>> with an initramfs
>>
>> Andy
> Yes, and it will work if yo
linux fan wrote:
> On 6/30/10, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>
>> "The search lines are only meaningful for LFS systems if a separate boot
>> partition and a LABEL or UUID entry for this partition in /etc/fstab is
>> used."
>>
>
>
> It booted me and mounted /dev/sdd10
Excellent. Can you try it witho
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 30/06/10 19:33, Stuart Stegall wrote:
>> Seems like it should be the simplest way possible. Personally I don't
>> like the grub-mkconfig - has failed to work for me a few times, and I
>> believe it does that due to my host system.
>>
> grub-mkconfig has never worked for m
> So, regardless if you search or not, or set root manually, this has no
> effect once the kernel boots.
That's my understanding too.
> You either need root=/dev/sda1, or you
> need to use rdev (used to be in util-linux) to set the root. I
> believe when you compile the kernel, rdev is set au
301 - 400 of 2772 matches
Mail list logo
