¦Þ¦¦T 8 22:54 /usr/lib64/crt1.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1512 ¦Þ¦¦T 8 22:54 /usr/lib64/crti.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 768 ¦Þ¦¦T 8 22:54 /usr/lib64/crtn.o
I don't investigated further, because now I'm building a pure 64-bit
toolchain, using "--disable-multilib", and i
er to verify that is so or not, emit the following command just
after the perl is installed:
$ /tools/bin/perl -e '$"="\n";print "@INC"'
I am going to check it by myself later, now as a temporary workaround
I've simply created
me to which a loader should they be?
> BTW the symlink will no longer be valid after you chroot.
It will be, 'cause I've created it exactly AFTER. :)
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> LFS does not work for 64-bit systems.
Yes, I know. But on a i386 system, these tests should be linked
against /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 or against just compiled new linker
that resides somewhere in glibc-build directory
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, as I mentioned before, it should never have been created anyway.
> The actual problem needs to be fixed, not simply worked around with a
> symlink.
For sure. I've said "a temporary" workaround.
Fix
-
he small test programs
that are executed by "make check"? I mean second, and at the time they
are executing NO libraries are installed in /lib. If, naturally, you
follow the book strictly and run "make install" AFTER "make check".
Fix
--
http://lin
7;re referring was OK.
So that I'm waiting for anyone else to confirm or to reject the report.
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
t. :)
However, I've seen x86_64 beta LiveCD on the ftp, and I thought it is
a development version of the LFS. Is it a CLFS?
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
re building 64-bit *LFS system WITHOUT use of the cross
compilation, you would need the 64-bit host system, I guess. That's
what I do. And I think that system wouldn't be neither Cross nor
Beyond LFS.
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom
7;ve noticed that this LiveCD, really, is just a little
old: 16.10.2005 01:00:00
So I think you're a quite right. It needs to be removed.
:)
Fix
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
th slight deviations from the
book. All the libraries now are 64-bit and they're placed in
{,/usr}/lib instead of {,/usr}/lib64. In order to achieve this, six
different patches (four patches for gcc, two for glibc) were written
and applied at a different stages of a build process.
My tool
fairly serious number crunching.
Yes, such a benchmark would be interesting. Can you suggest a suitable
benchmark tool?
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
&&
make
[/QUOTE]
1. "--with-app-default" -- correct spelling of this option is '
--with-app-defaults'
2. "$XORG_PREFIX/share/X11/app-defaults" -- I think there is no need
to have two different directories for the app defaults, so the corrent
path should be
$
r, I know two men at least, who tried
to use it on a LFS system with no success. Can't you help, please?
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Monday 12 November 2007 13:19, Jaap Struyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> with: root:/usr/src/linux-2.6.23.1# make
> CHK include/linux/version.h
> CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h
> CALLscripts/checksyscalls.sh
# make mrproper
# make ARCH=x86_64 config
# make ARCH=x86_64
?
pgp
Dan wrote:
> Just a note to both groups that the expect-5.43.0 tarball is back up
> at http://expect.nist.gov/ . Here's what the maintainer had to say.
>
> Dan
Sweet. :) Thanks for the followup, Dan. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.li
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> In the LFS cleanfs script, we have the construct:
>>
>> cd /tmp &&
>> find . -xdev -mindepth 1 ! -name lost+found \
>> -delete || failed=1
>>
>> Since I test build a lot of apps in /tmp, this instruction can take a
>> very long time upon bootup
Archaic wrote:
> I see now what you are saying and agree. However, this sort of
> information seems most useful to developers and the more
> highly advanced
> readers. Perhaps a note should be placed in chap5's intro linking to
> this advanced information with a caveat that it isn't needed for a
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:22:47AM -0400, David Fix wrote:
>>
>> If you use Windows, there's a really nice text editor
>> (available for Linux also), that's called EditPad Lite... It's
>> free. It does all sorts of nice stuff,
Hey guys, I've been working through the book (SVN-20050524), and I'm at 6.29.
Flex-2.5.31... However, I get the following when I attempt to compile (some
parts compile, then it gets to this):
if gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\"
-I/usr/incl
51PM -0000, David Fix wrote:
>
> Any thoughts, anyone? :)
Post this to lfs-support, please.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
> -Original Message-
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Flex compilation issue...
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:33:58PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:22:46PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > >
> > > If Flex is required to build itself, then it
> If the untar'd dir were copied with 'cp' rather than 'cp -a', the
> timestamps would be all wrong. That would force the flex attempt.
>
> ---
> David Jensen
I don't copy anything... I work in the /working directory and simply do a
"tar zxvf /sources/blah.tar.gz" or whatever... No other modif
> At this point I have more confidence in your install than mine! If I
> rebuild now, the flex bin is the virtually the same as my
> build. If I
> touch 'scan.l' before make, both scan.c and the flex bin are
> significantly larger.
> I'm going to change my script to:
> touch -t 0303311951 sca
> Apparently the DOCBOOKTOMAN="" doesn't work because it is trying to
> execute:
>
> docbook2man doc/modprobe.conf.sgml
>
> By making it "" we get this:
>
> if [ "" = "docbook2man" ]; then \
> doc/modprobe.conf.sgml > /dev/null 2>&1; \
> else
Just rebuilt module-init-tools 3.1, and did a "touch modprobe.conf.5" right
after I unpacked it. Problem solved. :) Thanks again!
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> 3.4.4 as well?
>
> --
> Archaic
Yes, I just untarred gcc-3.4.4.tar.bz2, and it contains the full testsuite.
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> Seeking feedback regarding fixing a link in the book.
>
> http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1564
>
> --
> Archaic
Yeah, I'd definitely take down the current wiki and go for a new one... As
was already said, the current one is... Lacking. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfro
> Issue 1:
>
> the following text sounds odd to me:
>
> ###
> For more information, see info bash - Nodes: Bash Startup Files and
> Interactive Shells.
> ###
> Issue 3:
>
> such locales are not supported by LFS in any way.
>
> sug
> The inputrc page located at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/chapter07/inp
> utrc.html
>
> is currently loaded with much more text than is needed, IMO, and is
> rather convoluted, too. Likewise, it refers to an /etc/skel directory
> which LFS does not create (nor does it cr
> Ah, so then we need to put out a call for a decent 1U server, eh?
> Anyone?
>
> /me goes looking on ebay.
I've found some Cobalt RAQs that have been pretty cheap on eBay. :) Might
wanna take a look for 'em. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http:
> NOOO :) Those things are pitifully slow. Not to mention things
> have to be done quite differently on mips boxes.
Actually, they have Intel/AMD architecture too. ;) And they're pretty
inexpensive. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://
> Please visit this new proposed site (follow the link below)
> and reply to
> the website mailing list with your thoughts or comments. We
> would like
> to hear from the community as to whether they would like to
> see this new
> design implemented.
>
> http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/
>
> What do you think would make it look "polished"?
>
> --
> JH
Hmm... :) I think, really, that the logo on the "old" site, with the soft
drop-shadows and the way the menu highlights give it the look... :) I
think that the menu highlights just need a little "3d'ing" to give them that
edge. :)
> And if push comes to shove, I assume Canadian usage will be the
> preferred model ;)
Yay! :) BTW, Happy Canada Day to those Canadians on here. ;) (Sure I'm
about 5 days late saying it on here, but I had a HECK of a good time on the
first!)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mail
Just wondering... I'm going through the SVN-20050705 book, and I notice
that it's still got binutils 2.16 in it... There's 2.16.1 out, and I've
successfully compiled it instead of 2.16 (I'm at chapter 6.14 now)... Any
reasons that we shouldn't be using 2.16.1? :)
Dave
--
http://linux
> We may have to stop the presses. Zlib has a DoS vulnerability. I'm
> looking for info now.
>
> --
> Archaic
A new one? Affecting v1.2.2? Where did you read about this? I can't find
anything about it! :) Not that I disbelieve you, I just want to read about
it myself! :)
Dave
--
> Well, it did up until 07:26 (UTC) today :) I upgraded it
> this morning,
> it should show up in tomorrows render.
*laugh* Perfect. :) Thanks Matt. :) Just thought I'd point that out.
;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
> A possible buffer overflow exploit was discovered in zlib.
> --
> Archaic
Thanks for the link and the patch, Archaic. :) Much appreciated. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informat
Hey guys...
I'm running through SVN-20050705, and I notice that on 6.14 (GCC 3.4.4), it
says to run the tests (make check)... However, in chapter 5, it mentions
that you don't HAVE to run the tests in chapter 5, but gives details on the
test suite notes... In chapter 6, where the tests are prett
Hey guys,
Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass
2...
There's this line:
Results can be compared with those located at
http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/.
However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different
mirrors. :)
> Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11.
> GCC-3.4.4 - Pass
> 2...
>
> There's this line:
> Results can be compared with those located at
> http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/.
>
> However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different
> mirro
> This is a website issue - will be fixed later today.
>
> Thanks
Whoops! :) Thanks! I'm sorry, I'd sent those to the wrong list. :) As an
aside, what ARE the correct URLs? ;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Un
> I get the folowing error doing make in autoconf-2.59 in
lfs-gcc4-20050728
Where can a fellow take a look at the gcc4 book? :) I'd be interested in
providing some feedback on this! :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.
> -Original Message-
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:41 PM
> Subject: GCC-4.0.1 patch (no_fixincludes)
>
> Hi all,
>
> Noted in the list of required patches in the GCC-4 branch is the
> gcc-4.0.1-no_fixincludes-1.patch patch. However, this patch does not
> seem to be referenced in the
> I find it easiest to check out the SVN sources and render the book
> myself. It is easier to stay with a consistent version that way, if
> desired. I don't know if it is available on Belgarath and mirrors as
> HTML, I didn't check.
>
> I also plan on being as helpful as possible and sending in p
> It's rendered on a daily basis at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/gcc4/
AHA! :) That's what I was looking for! Thanks a ton!
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information pag
> Seeing how the Bash documentation is expansive, it may be nice to have
> the HTML files installed, allowing folks to easily print and have
> browser search capability.
>
> What say the group?
I think it should be included for sure... :) If you're going to be doing
LFS, it probably means you'l
> Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
> LFS to confirm this?
Confirmed here, Randy, and I'm running SVN-20050730. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informati
> Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
> GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
> branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
> files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can
> explain, or care to comment
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393
> 393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++)
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393
> #1 0x080521b8 in cmdscanner (top=1) at main.c:355
> #2 0x
> Looks like 'q' is the culprit:
>
> (gdb) print q
> $2 = 0x1
Looks like it to me too. :) I'm taking a look right now to see if I can't
find the problem. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the a
Hm... I may have been wrong, it said that p was pointing to an invalid
address too... I have NO idea why q is invalid, however.
Can you do a:
-These commands
print c
ptype c
print c->c_name
ptype c->c_name
?
Thanks. :) (I'm compiling gcc-4.01 right now, but it's being compiled on
an PII
> And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
> working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.
No patch-o attach-o. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
> working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2. I've tested it
> to the best
> of the amount of time availible, but it should be correct. Alexander,
> Archaic, Randy and anyone else who has seen the issue, I'd
> appreciate if
>
> Well, I didn't have the problem before... However, I am now
> experiencing
> the following problem after applying your patch:
>
> /etc# init.d/spamd stop
> Stopping spamd... [ FAIL ]
>
> It was running, and it DID stop it, but reported a failure.
> Then I tried starting it again:
>
> /etc#
> Unless you have a reason to use static libraries, I'd just move them
> out of the way (after confirming exactly what it installed,
> of course).
> If you do have a reason to use them, rebuild *binutils* following the
> chapter 6 LFS instructions.
Ok great. :) Thank you ever so much, Ken. :)
Ok, without the patch, DJ, I am experiencing a problem, where I try to stop
an already stopped process, and it pretends to work. :) However, it really
doesn't, of course, since the process isn't actually running. And you
already have seen what the patch did to me. :)
Dave
PS Sorry abo
> Okay, does the spamd script that you use set PIDFILE?
>
> -- DJ Lucas
Nope... I just copied from some of the other bootscripts... However, I had
the same problems with samba, which I'd done completely according to the
book. Here is what /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd looks like:
#! /bin/sh
. /etc/
> Non-Technical explanation: I actually tested fully (I believe) and it
> works!!! :-D
Well that looks better. ;) I'm still wondering, though, why: When I have a
process not running (spamd in this case), and I do a "spamd stop", it still
says, "[ OK ]". :D Shouldn't it say "/usr/bin/spamd is
> I've become rather fond on the style shown in Bruce's SBU pages:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/about.html
>
> it neatly gets you:
> 1) a log
> 2) the time it took recorded in the log
> 3) a deeper understanding of how the shell works :-)
Nice! :) Thanks!
Dave
--
ht
> Not now. 3.2.x went after partial LSB-2.1.0 compliancy to ease the
> transition. See below from the spec.
Ah, gotcha. :) Makes sense then. :) Thanks so much for your hard work,
DJ. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc
> I believe you are correct, but I'd have to direct this back to Nathan.
> If you want to add it for yourself, it's real easy three
> lines in killproc:
Could you give some line numbers for that patch? :) Sorry, I'm just not
QUITE sure where to put them. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfroms
> Please join me in welcoming Ken Moffat to the LFS development
> team.
_ _ _ _
| | | |___| |___ ___ _ ___
| | | | -_| | _| . | | -_|
|_|___|_|___|___|_|_|_|___|
__
_| |
| | |___ ___| |
|-| -_| |__|
> Is that yes - I'd like to see a nice green '[ OK ]' when I stop an
> already stopped process (the way it is now, which _is_ correct by the
> exit status)? Or is that yes - I'd like to see a yellow 'Warning: not
> running [ WARN ]' when I stop it (which also returns 0 as is
> required for L
Hey folks... :) I was just checking the man page for "limits", and saw
this:
---
The limits file (/etc/limits by default or LIMITS_FILE defined config.h)
describes the resource limits you wish to impose. It should be owned by root
and readable by root account only.
---
However, currently, /et
> I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the
> GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that
> are really show-stoppers.
*CHEER* Love to. :) I've not gone ahead and done a 4.01 install myself,
but I thought about it... :) I love the idea, I ju
> Yep, and I got a similar problem at work not so long ago!
> the BUS ERROR
> in that case was caused by free()ing an invalid pointer...no,
> I know I'm
> not too good at C! I'd imagine it's a similar problem in inetutils.
> It's just a matter of tracking it down. I can't remember,
> but d
> Of course it works ! (-:
Haw. :) Now that's cute. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> I may be wrong, but make check fails with the current
> instructions, worked
> when I removed the '&&' like so:
>
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD make check
That makes more sense without the && . :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscrat
> Hmm, still think it's crazy. Maybe that's a missing feature in the
> kernel? Somehow I think that'll never see the light of day.
>
> I looked and my ping is setuid.
>
> -rwsr-xr-x1 root root15876 Sep 4 2001 /bin/ping*
Yep, it may be crazy, but that's how it is... Stops peo
> Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
All I can respond is "yes, yes, yes!" :) All progress is GOOD progress.
;) Seriously, though, I've been working on compiling a GCC-4 version of
LFS, but really wondered myself why the SVN version is not using GCC... No
re
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > Indeed. I don't have a lot of time (or even any debugging tools
> > installed atm) so I haven't had a chance to do that yet.
> But it does
> > seem a better course to take if we can spot the exact problem.
>
> Hrm. Does this spark anything with anyone?
Yeah, but da
I'm not sure if this is the right list to do this in, but I noticed that in
the netiquette section of the book
(http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#netiquette), publicly is
mis-spelled... :) It is currently spelled "publicaly". :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/
> The correct list would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've forwarded
> your original message. Thanks.
>
> --
> Archaic
Thanks Archaic. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> Thanks again - I've enjoyed it immensely.
And vice-versa. :) Thank you for everything, Jeremy. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to make a formal request for a 6.1.1 release of the LFS
> Book.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> JH
Yeah, for sure I'm with that. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsub
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> Feature request: don't hardcode target numbers. E.g., in my UTF-8
>> book, a new package (gdbm) has been added, thus causing number skew
>> for all packages after it. Thus, constructions of the following form
>> fail:
>>
>> if [ "$i" = "0
> I'd suggest something like this:
>
> if [ ${string: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
>
> Dave :)
Sorry, a bit of a typo, but this is "more" correct:
if [ ${i: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
Close, but had the wrong variable. :P
Dave
--
http://linuxfro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 15:36, David Fix escribió:
>
>> Sorry, a bit of a typo, but this is "more" correct:
>>
>> if [ ${i: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
>>
>
> That sounds good and is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 19:52, David Fix escribió:
>
>> You bet. :) Just remember to change the -5 to whatever the length
>> of the command is that you're checking against. :)
>
> The number means the lenght of the strin
> Fixed but using something a little diferent:
>
> if [ ${i:4:8} = "binutils" ] ; then
>
> That will match both 027-binutils-pass1 and 036-binutils-pass2 ;-)
True true... Hopefully the schema doesn't change dramatically on us. :)
Looks good, though. :) Handy little thing to know for a substr
> Manuel, do you mind if we switch over to this method of string
> comparisons in jhalfs? David's method is nice, but the syntax Seth
> suggests is easier to read and doesn't result in forks. Also
> it doesn't
> require a specific string format.
I'd say go with that as well. :P My method was a l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can't get used to vim, and use emacs. So my host system has emacs.
> I only once managed to hack the gettext configure to not believe emacs
> existed, so it always tries to compile lisp support or some such and
> always fails if I don't have emacs in my toolchain, but
Hey guys, just working through the SVN book (SVN-20051107), and following the
parallel build hint
(http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/parallelcompiling.txt),
I found a problem...
For DejaGnu it shows to do the following:
DejaGnu-1.4.4
Change: make install
To:
> I've got the necessary changes made in the new alphabetical branch.
Quick question... :P What's the alphabetical branch? :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>>> I've got the necessary changes made in the new alphabetical branch.
>>
>>
>> Quick question... :P What's the alphabetical branch? :)
>
> http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684
Oho! :) Thanks. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
> echo "127.0.0.1 localhost $(hostname)" > /etc/hosts
>
> This will definitely be overwritten in 7.11. It also takes care of
> the perl testsuite case where it is needed.
>
> What do people think about adding the above command to Ch. 6.7?
>
> --
> Dan
Sounds good to me. :) No harm from it, f
Randy wrote:
I hope that one day, after time has had its chance to heal,
> that we can sit back and laugh about the other night.
Oh hell, I was laughing behind my hand the whole damn time. :P I just had
to watch where the bodies fell, is all. ;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/ma
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Just pinging this.
Just wanted to mention that the penguin still looks funny in IE. ;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> David Fix wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> Just pinging this.
>>
>>
>> Just wanted to mention that the penguin still looks funny in IE. ;)
>
> And this matters...how?
>
> -- Bruce
Just figured if y
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Please watch the trimming so who said what doesn't get mixed
> up. Jeremy did not say the above. I did.
Whoops! :) Sorry about that. :)
> No offense taken. However, I personally do not want to cater to an
> application that is notorious for not following standards.
> IE
Jeremy wrote:
> I think I have it fixed now. If you all could just verify it for me,
> please. Also, has anyone looked at this in Konqueror or
> Safari? Curious
> if it looks alright in those.
>
> --
> JH
Looks great in IE, Jeremy. :) Unfortunately, the box I'm on only has IE 6
(6.0.2900.2180.x
93 matches
Mail list logo
