Re: ICA/Farce

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've never looked at jhalfs but I understand it implements my ICA > algorithms. My own scripts have been getting exceptionally clean > results lately now that the randomness in GCC builds has apparently gone > as of GCC 4.

Re: ICA/Farce

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:59 AM, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I meant to say was that I, for one, would be grateful for any > additional documentation of the subject. It's pretty straightforward, although I might butcher some of the terminology. The main goal is to see if the

Re: ICA/Farce

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Gilles Espinasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Instead to gunzip all .gz files, would it not better to submit patches that > add > -n when gzip run so the files in use will really be the same? > I should say I have made some patches like that but have not reported

Re: perl-5.10.0

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm puzzling over two tickets concerning perl: 2071 and 2227 > > It looks like 2071 says that we need to add -Dvendorprefix=/usr to the > configuration process, but configure.gnu doesn't support it. > > Dan mentions that he

Re: xkeyboard-config and intltool

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I see on the xkeyboard-config page that intltool is listed as an > optional dependency, but if I try building the current instructions as > is without intltool, I get the following configure error: > > checking for

Re: xorg-server and pixman

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I know there has been a lot of discussion on Xorg lately, so sorry if > this is bringing up a known issue, but xorg-server also appears to > require pixman now. The instructions in BLFS svn break for me at > xo

Re: Aiming for 7.0

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:07:25 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Anything else? > > Ticket #2284 - radical plan would be to just drop udev-config completely, > then any reported issues should be passed

Re: Freeglut requires GL/gl*.h

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi all. > > I'm running through an Xorg-7.4 build, but have hit a problem. Firstly, > there's > a slight inconsistency: > > The Xorg Apps page says that MesaGlut is recommended. But, visiting the > MesaGlut > page suggests that FreeGlut

Re: CLFS antics

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Greg Schafer wrote: > > If the LFS project had any kind of leadership with any kind of backbone, > there'd be serious consequences for this kind of divisive behavior. While I agree with your sentiments about Cross LFS creating a native book, what could the LFS le

Re: CLFS Bashing - Fork?? When??

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Jim Gifford wrote: > > We are not a fork, never have been. How is it _not_ a fork? CLFS has different goals, a different structure, runs on its own servers and contributes nothing (until 2 days ago) back to its supposed parent project, LFS. I see no other way to

Re: expat 2.0.1 patch

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dan Moore wrote: > Installation of expat on BLFS 6.3/SVN doesn't include a expat.pc file for > pkgconfig. > As a result, some downstream installs think that expat is missing from the > system. > > This patch (tested on expat-2.0.1) corrects this issue. > (The ba

Re: Adapting LFS SVN for multilib

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Jim Gifford wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: >> Jim Gifford wrote: >> >> >>> Again Greg provide us more information about the ICA, it seems to be >>> your own creation? >>> >> >> 1. Read t

Re: Adapting LFS SVN for multilib

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Jim Gifford wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> How is it hearsay? Plenty of people (Greg, myself, Jeremy, Manuel, >> Matthew, etc.) here have used this analysis to identify issues in the >> build. The current ordering of the packages in LFS was

Re: no libidn/ in glibc-2.9

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:46:16 +0100 (MET), Alexander Kozlov > wrote: >> >> You are right, libidn is not mentioned in the book, my fault. >> There is libidn/ directory in the snapshot source tree which is >> absent in glibc-2.9 release. Is

Re: coreutils instructions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > Given that LFS only installs bash, does any of this matter? :) A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, and I think DJ has been maintaining that goal. I think it's a nice (and obtainable) goal to target since

Re: coreutils instructions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, >> and I think DJ has been maintaining that goal. I think it's a nice >> (and obtainable) goal to target since

Re: coreutils instructions

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Dan Nicholson wrote: >>> >>>> A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, and >>>>

The time has come

Hi everyone, I'm sure those of you that are actively involved in LFS have noticed that my participation has been non-existent for quite some time now. So, this should probably not shock anyone, but I think it's time that I step away from my duties as an editor for LFS and BLFS. I still enjoy read

Re: zdiff problem

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I'm trying to address ticket #2315 that says zdiff doesn't work.  I confirmed > this by creating two files with a one line difference and compressing them: > > gzip file1 > gzip file2 > > But 'zdiff file1.gz file2.gz' gives no output.  Older ve

Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> --enable-kernel=VERSION compile for compatibility with kernel not older than >>    VERSION > > Yes: abort any program at startup if the current kernel version is less > than VERSION, and also remove any workarounds incl

Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Bryan Kadzban >> wrote: >>> Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> --enable-kernel=VERSION compile for compatibility with kernel not older >>>> th

Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>> Using 2.6.18 appears to potentially affect binaries built against kernels >>> older >>> than that and run on a LFS-6.5

Re: 3 concurrent instances of udevd

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi, > > On a newly built LFS-6.5-RC1 (with file-5.03 & Linux-2.6.30.2) > I see 3 instances of `/sbin/udevd --daemon' running at the same time. > > Process 498, parent 1 > Process 543, parent 498 > Process 544, parent 498 > > Is this what 'NE

Re: Coreutils i18n patch prevents dash from building

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi, > > Following a thread on blfs-support[0], it looks like the i18n > patch for Coreutils causes a problem during compilation of > Dash in BLFS.  The attached builtins file produces the following > output when we compile Coreutils with the

Re: Coreutils i18n patch prevents dash from building

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:13:38 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Matthew >> Burgess wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Following a thread on blfs-support[0], it looks like the i18

Re: Linux Standards Base

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find that we > have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get to compliance.   > The > discussion below is only a start.  There may be more needed after I get their >

Re: Linux Standards Base

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> Couldn't find install_initd > > See bootscripts/contrib/lsb-v3 in the book repository for this one. > Personally, since I never use this interface (since symlinks don't > confuse me :-P ), I don't want it, but... > >

Re: Backporting Nouveau to the 2.6.32.* kernel

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On 21/02/10 20:57, Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote: >> I don't think this can be done for the current LFS release that will ship >> with 2.6.32. The Book already says that the latest available 2.6.32.x >> should be used. The backported patch

Re: Radeon DRM

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On 05/03/10 09:38, Duncan Baynes wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Just built a 64bit lfs 6.6, everything went smoothly, excellent work as >> always! >> >> I've been playing around with the 2.6.33 kernel including the new radeon >> driver. >> >> The resu

Re: [spammer]

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 invitations to everyone in your contacts. He may have done this inadverte

Re: the issue of environment value $PS1 set under Ubuntu 10.04

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:40 AM, littlebat wrote: > This issue was posted onto lfs-support mailing list yesterday (see: > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-June/038814.html ), > unluckly I disabled the mail delivery of LFS mailing list some days ago, so I > can't continue di

Re: ssl certs - not found by epiphany-2.30

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > (yeah, I know the book is still using gnome-2.28).  In openssl we put > the certs in > /etc/ssl/ca-bundle.crt.  I haven't yet identified what else is using > these, but epiphany is looking for >  /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt and > /etc/ssl/c

Re: Bootscript future

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 8/11/10 12:40 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: >> Actually, for LSB compliance, the 'distribution supplied boot scripts' >> need not use /lib/lsb/init-functions at all.  All that is required is >> that the scripts provide the LSB header information,

Re: ntp init script

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 8/23/10 6:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> What if the ntp server provided is down like in the 2nd entry above? > > Or (for who knows what reason) outgoing ICMP packets are blocked where > you have no control? > >> This problem is not easily

Re: Xorg plans (Was: Re: problem with groff 1.21)

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: > On 01/12/2011 05:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: >>  I've no idea where BLFS is going in the move to 7.6 - my (old) >> radeons work well in everything except mesa-demos, but then I no >> longer build a lot of the old things (many of the 'apps' still >> l

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Robert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 16:45, Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> >>> * Dynamic boot script - No more static list of links, this kind of ties >>> into LSB Bootscripts, but there are other options. >

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>> * LSB Compliance - For LFS we are nearly there anyway. >>> >>  So, since you have raised this, what do you think needs to be done >> that is a major change ?  More to the point, should we really care ? >> I don't have any interest in lettin

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> On 03/14/2011 12:03 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: >> > >> > >> >On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:45 PM, DJ Lucas > >> wrote: >> > >> >    On 03/13/2011 11:39 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: >

Re: Menu configuration

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote: > Hey, > Maybe a little off-topic. :-s > > Can I use the c code from the menu/ folder in jhalfs in my own project > to make a similar configuration menu? > > Are there some extra documantation to this ncurses based menu-system? I'm pretty sure

Re: Using the LSB Bootscripts

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 5/10/11 8:25 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: >>       * Most important, pull as much as possible of the items below from >> LightCube OS's files to ease merging and keep the diffs to a minimum so >> that they are easily shared across distributions.

Re: svn bootscripts

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: >> On 05/30/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> In the latest svn, the bootscripts are lfs-bootscripts-20110424. >>> >>> I get an error:  make[1]: /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd: Command not found >>> >>> This was identified a we

Re: perl-5.14.1

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Nathan Coulson wrote: > >> silly question, but what was the reason for only installing part of >> perl?  I know we don't need it, but we rarely go out of our way to >> just install what we need in chapter 5's packages. > > Well, it's an interes

Re: links in Matt's emails

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:53 AM, akhiezer wrote: > Matt, > > For a long time now, links in your posts often include the full-stop > (aka 'period') in the linked text - see e.g. the links in your post: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-book/2011-August/026906.html > > When one clicks on

Re: Stripping in Chapter 6

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > There appears to be a somewhat bogus statement in section 6.63 > "Stripping Again". It says there: > "If disk space is very tight, the --strip-all option can be used on > the binaries in /{,usr/}{bin,sbin} to gain several more megabytes. Do

Re: pkg-config tests

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Doing some debugging, I'm making some progress.  I made some debug >> printouts and in the first case got: >> >>    required_pkgconfig_version 999.999 >> >> but in the second >> >>    required_pkgconfig_version a=b >> >>

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev.  On a >> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries are installed, >> I as able to build and looked at the executables a

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:58:08 +0100 > Ken Moffat wrote: > >>  Actually, for some of us they *are* scary.  I thought I was making >> some progress (persuaded autoreconf to complete without errors using >> the attached -A.patch), but then confi

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS SVN and Systemd Report

On 5/31/12, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100 > Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you >> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all >> the way, but I thi

Re: *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/26/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO, the only person lately who has shown the required levels of > understanding, drive and commitment, is you Dan. You obviously care quite > a lot about LFS. If I were a betting man, my money would be on you for > sure :-) Thanks for the v

Re: Alphabetical UTF-8 Build is ICA Verified

On 1/27/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I haven't been running the testsuites, but I'm doing that now to make > > sure that their dependencies are met. > > Good man! As has already been seen with perl and db, and I think a > locale for coreutils tests, ICA analysis is different f

Re: Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/27/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ever looked at a build log of GCC itself? Guess what? -B. /tools/src/build/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -B/tools/src/build/gcc-build/gcc/ -B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ ... Seems gcc thinks it's OK to search for libraries wi

Re: Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/27/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19353 > > Our longtime Toolchain Maintainer, Ryan Oliver, still prefers to use > this method. Um, the decision might be made for us: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00507.html Spec

Re: New toolchain adjustment/sanity check problem

On 1/28/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before you > install GCC into /usr, the check for "/usr/lib/crt.*" will work, but > after you do it will not because GCC will actually be using > "/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.0.2/../../../crt1.o" Good catch, Chris. What about grep "/usr/.

Re: Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/28/06, Ryan Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:36 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > Um, the decision might be made for us: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00507.html > > Yup, and its still there 1 year la

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have given some major thought to this. And I waited to hear comments. > I think at this point, everyone that wanted to, or is able to comment, > has done so. The way I see it, both ways achieve the desired effect of finding the startfile

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So. Exepect a commit in ~ 5 minutes. Hey, Jeremy, just a little nit. The new specs readjustment will fail because we're piping input to perl, but then using the -i parameter to work on the `dirname ...`/specs file. This fails if that fil

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So. Exepect a commit in ~ 5 minutes. > > Hey, Jeremy, just a little nit. And another. We're trying to make a symbolic link at /tools/$MACH

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So. Exepect a commit in ~ 5 minutes. > > Probably, we should drop -i and redirect the output: Now that I think about this more, the pipe and red

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't fail. I've tested it again here and it's fine. Try directing > it to a temporary location that you know doesn't exist, and look at the > finished product. > > gcc -dumpspecs | \ > perl -pi -e 's@/tools/lib/ld@/lib/[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We're covered, because I do this first: > > mv -v /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/{ld,ld-old} Yeah, sorry. Missed that one. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See th

Re: Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > > +mv -v /tools/bin/{ld,ld-old} > > +mv -v /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/{ld,ld-old} > > +mv -v /tools/bin{ld-new,ld} > > +ln -v /tools/bin/ld /tools/$MACHTYPE/bin/ld > > Any reason why something similar can't be done for th

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/29/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So. Exepect a commit in ~ 5 minutes. Sorry, one more nit, though this has to do with Binutils-Pass 1 & 2. I didn't notice it until it was rendered today. Currently, the make command on the rebuild has make LDFLAGS="-s" LIB_PATH="/new/pa

Re: [SUMMARY] Re-adding *startfile_prefix_spec

On 1/30/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *sigh* I suppose the right thing to do here is pick myself up and try > again. But I'm getting pretty bruised. :/ I'm issuing a standing 8 count. How many fingers am I holding up? Maybe you could use one of those "Hang in there, kitty" p

Fwd: expect-5.43.0 Issues

Hi, My apologies if this isn't the proper forwarding technique from one list to the other. This issue has come up a few times now. I have no idea why they took 5.43.0 of the expect web site. We have to fix this issue. The link in the book needs to be changed to a local copy on one of the LFS m

Re: Fwd: expect-5.43.0 Issues

On 2/2/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > This issue has come up a few times now. I have no idea why they took > > 5.43.0 of the expect web site. We have to fix this issue. The link > > in the book needs to be changed

Fwd: expect-5.43.0 tarball missing from nist.gov website

issing from nist.gov website To: Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're right. I've been having problems with 5.44 and shouldn't have rolled it out. I've taken your suggestion and rolled back to 5.43.0. I've also put a message at the top of the home page noting

Re: perl libc patch incomplete?

On 2/4/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In short, it looks like Chapter 5 Perl creates the UU/findhdr file with > the following contents in the beginning: > > sed -i 's,in \$usrinc,in /tools/include,' Configure You have a good point, Alexander. I was about to kick off a s

Re: perl libc patch incomplete?

On 2/4/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proposal: If all of the above gets verified, add the equivalent of the > following sed to the perl -libc patch: > > sed -i 's,in \$usrinc,in /tools/include,' Configure Alexander, After looking over Configure for a while, I would sugg

Re: perl libc patch incomplete?

On 2/4/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > After looking over Configure for a while, I would suggest this > > > > sed -i 's,/usr/include,/tools/include,g' Configure > > > usrinc="${prefix}/include" &

Re: perl libc patch incomplete?

On 2/4/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > After looking over Configure for a while, I would suggest this > > > > sed -i 's,/usr/include,/tools/include,g' Configure > > Hmmm, yes it should work. But I believe hi

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

On 2/7/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is my advice to those who think it takes too long... get 1GB to > 2GB ram and build your sources in shared memory or get a faster > machine. The American Way (TM) - There's no obstacle too big for purchasing power. -- http://linuxfr

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

On 2/7/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is a bold statement to make and doesn't belong here. > The whole world isn't poor you know. My comment didn't have a place here. Sorry about that. I'll remember to keep the personal stuff to myself next time. For the record, tho

Re: OOo-2.0.1, Xorg 7.0, Firefox-1.5 and System NSS/NSPR (Long)

On 2/8/06, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I had built Firefox using Randy's new method of the system NSS/NSPR > libraries. During the OO build it barfs because it can't find > "prtypes.h" which resides in /usr/include/nspr. > > checking MOZILLAXPCOM_CFLAGS... -I/usr/include/firefox-1.5

Re: Bootstrapping GCC

On 2/6/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All, > > In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that we > can do to our current build which will help stabilize it completely: add > 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6. > > > Comments? As I said in a

Re: Version SVN-20060210 missing ncurses 5.5 fixes patch?

On 2/13/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 2006, at 8:28 AM, William Harrington wrote: > > > > ./shlib: line 140: 21535 Segmentation fault tic -x -s -o / > > tools/share/terminfo terminfo.tmp > > ? tic could not build /tools/share/terminfo > > make[1]:

Re: Version SVN-20060210 missing ncurses 5.5 fixes patch?

On 2/13/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > So, you got past gcc and binutils pass 1 on FC4? Did you have to do > > anything to get them to build? Are you using the stock compiler from > > Fedora? > > I just got through b

Re: Version SVN-20060210 missing ncurses 5.5 fixes patch?

On 2/13/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The user was using the stock compiler. Ikonia helped out some with it. > Pretty much just kicked FC4 out the door and moved to something > better. Does that mean you had to deviate from the book to get it to work? Does this mean you bu

Re: The Secret Cause of Flame Wars

On 2/13/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2 > > Very appropriate. I couldn't agree more with that article. It should be required reading. -- Dan P.S. I was being serious. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l

Re: linux 2.6.15 and the linux-libc-headers project

On 2/15/06, kevin lyda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've read the instructions in Chapter 5 on how to install it. However I > now want to install Linux 2.6.15 and there is no corresponding > linux-libc-headers tarball. In fact the oldest one is for Linux 2.6.12 > from July 2005. You can run a

binutils to change ld search behavior

Hi, It appears that binutils ld will be changing its search behavior to more closely follow ld.so. See this post: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2006-02/msg00127.html It seems that rather than using the compiled in LIB_PATH that we make use of in Ch. 5 to repoint the linker to where we w

Re: binutils to change ld search behavior

On 2/15/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > It appears that binutils ld will be changing its search behavior to > more closely follow ld.so. See this post: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2006-02/msg00127.html By the way, this has been

Re: binutils to change ld search behavior

On 2/15/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > It seems that rather than using the compiled in LIB_PATH that we make > > use of in Ch. 5 to repoint the linker to where we want, the default > > will be that the paths in /etc/ld.so

Re: binutils to change ld search behavior

On 2/15/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Where do you get the HJL releases from? Never mind. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/ -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: S

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage? Does > something we build later on actually require devices in there that we > haven't yet got available to us? Hi Matt, Glad to hear some news on the udev branch. Anyway,

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

On 2/18/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Grub requires the nodes for your hard drive to install the mbr Whoops, maybe I should read the whole thread before I reply. Thanks for the cluebat, Joe. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom

Re: Udev_update branch: /dev/pts and /dev/shm directories not created

On 2/18/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, some people build, for instance X11, in the chroot (very > tempted to let my spellchecker change this to cheroot :) environment, > and they might need some of the device nodes. Joe's way might be best, > however. Yeah, I was th

Re: Recent toolchain breakage

On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now, the only odd thing I've noticed is that after building > binutils-pass2 in chapter 5, ld-new (which gets copied to /tools/bin/ld > then symlinked to /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld) is a shell script, as > opposed to a binary (ld is an

Re: Recent toolchain breakage

On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > I believe you may have inadvertantly left the --enable-shared in the > > configuration of binutils-pass2. > > And so right you are. The switch was indeed in my scripts, and I've

Re: Recent toolchain breakage

On 2/18/06, Jeremy Byron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get the 'Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-linux.so.2,' 'attempt > to open /lib/libc.so.6 succeeded,' and 'found ld-linux.so.2 at > /lib/ld-linux.so.2' lines but not the 'attempt to open /usr/lib/crt?.o > succeeded' lines. > > If I cha

Re: Recent toolchain breakage

On 2/18/06, Jeremy Herbison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Getting the same thing here on my scripted builds... the ch.6 sanity checks > pass, but after building ch.6 gcc and then redoing the tests, the > > grep "/usr/lib/crt.* " dummy.log > > test doesn't find anything. As I said in the o

Re: Recent toolchain breakage

On 2/18/06, Jeremy Herbison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you want to keep testing after this, I suggest changing the test to > > > > grep "/usr/.*/crt.*" dummy.log > > > > Because we really just want to make sure it's not looking in /tools > > anymore. > > Okay, and that works fine. Should cha

Re: Does GCC compile option ---with-local-prefix still work?

On 2/21/06, William Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The configuration switch --with-local-prefix seems to be redundant in > GCC package. > But after searching through the whole config script, it seems this > option is not processed. Look at gcc/configure and gcc/Makefile.in. It's there. As

Re: Bugs in udev_update branch

On 2/22/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3) Linux-2.6.15 is used, which means that some deices (e.g., IDE CD-ROMs > and input devices) won't get modaliases or won't generate uevents > properly. The solution is to upgrade to linux-2.6.16-rc4 or to say that > the bug exists and

Re: Binutils-2.16.1-pass1

On 2/22/06, Bob Winckelmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5.3. Binutils-2.16.1 - Pass 1 > > At the bottom, the > > >Next, prepare the linker for the "Adjusting" phase later on: > > make -C ld clean > > make -C ld LIB_PATH=/tools/lib > > cp -v ld/ld-new /tools/bin > > is no longer necessary I believe

Re: Binutils-2.16.1-pass1

On 2/22/06, Bob Winckelmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My bad, > > I had seen > > >"[jhuntwork] - Adjust binutils-pass1 so we don't need to hang on to its > >source directories.. > > in the changelog... and I was under the (wrong) impression that those where no > longer necessary. I missed the c

Re: Text in fstab page about /dev/shm

On 2/22/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't really know much of anything about the subject myself, but it > seems strange that it says /dev/shm is "optional" when it's described as > required during the LFS system build. Is that paragraph simply out-of-date? I don't know much ab

Re: Comments on Trac ticket mails

On 2/23/06, Nico R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about the following? > [LFS #1234] Useful subject lines > [BLFS #] Handle ticket numbers with 5 digits or more > [CLFS #4711] New build method I like this the best. Combined with the From: field, I wouldn't have a problem figuring

Re: Leaving LFS for a while

On 2/24/06, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy folks, > > Well the dreaded day has arrived and I shall be deployed > overseas. I will be active > march 2nd and should last around 416 days. Maybe who knows... Good luck, William. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mail

Re: binutils to change ld search behavior

On 2/15/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/15/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > > It seems that rather than using the compiled in LIB_PATH that we make > > > use of in Ch. 5 to repoint the li

Re: New BLFS Editor

On 2/27/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: > > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> I would like to announce that Dan Nicholson has been appointed as the > >> newest BLFS Editor. Please help me in welcoming him to the project. > >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >