completing the LFS book.
Would it be more appropriate to have it install into /etc?
Regards
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Sunday 30 March 2008 16:25, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 4:17 AM, George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Posting this to the dev list as it isn't really a breakage.
> >
> > After building man-db.2.5.1 folowing the SVN
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Forwarding to lfs-dev...I'm currently unable to commit to SVN (my own network
> setup here). I'd guess we either need to revert back to the '-' or change it
> to '–' (note the additional ';').
>
> George, h
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> George Boudreau wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> Forwarding to lfs-dev...I'm currently unable to commit to SVN (my own
>>> network setup here). I'd guess we either need to revert back to the '-' or
>>> change it to
Hi,
I have added the new variables to LFS/master.sh. This will only
impact LFS and should not affect the building of earlier books.
If there are any problems let me know.
regards
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Ryan Oliver wrote:
I must admit I never really ever bothered doing a time comparison
between the methods (the build takes as long as it takes). Would be
interesting to get some figures...
If we can get jhalfs set up to parse CLFS x86 -> x86, I can time the
builds here.
Just playing the devil's advocate but have you run your script
against a 2.6.12 kernel and compared your output to the 'official'
2.6.12 llh files.
Jim Gifford wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
BTW, instead of writing to /tmp/new_header file, the script should
probably write to $header.orig. T
LLH hasn't seen a new release for a lot more than six months now and up
until today I hoped to get back on track with new releases. But I've
just spent some time doing a 2.6.14 update, and it came back to me, that
I'd have to spend up to 10 hours just to get a basic 2.6.14.0 ready. And
there'
I have lost the thread for this topic so I will reply to my own posting..
You bring up a good point: I should have mentioned that I built the
glibc flavor. I wonder if this could be a glibc issue? That would
cause havoc when the kernel tries to run init, I assume - but would it
cause a kern
(oops, when was the last backup?)
900 series would be nice but stay away from the top end as it is
overpriced for minimal performance gain, invest in disks and memory
instead..
just a opinion
George
p.s. for the dreamers, how about a beowolf cluster with distcc.
( I have a extra Sincl
Randy McMurchy wrote:
George Boudreau wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:42 CST:
It is fast enough for me and does a full LFS build in well under 2
hours and can render a book in minutes.
I have a 500mhz p3 that every hour looks to see if there are updates
to the BLFS and LFS books. If so
f ext3.
I have looked forward to the next release of LFS since installing 6.1 a
while ago, I will keep checking for any small bugs in the book as I go
through but so far so good
Good work all involved!
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscrat
Robert,
The following patch seems to be missing, I have looked in your
patches dir and did not notice it there..
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/hlfs/svn/glibc-2.4-iconv_unnest-1.patch
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
U
Robert,
One last typo. (at least jhalfs is good at catching cmd script issues
:-) )
G.
7.12. Linux-2.6.17.7
..
install -m444
/sources/grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.7-200607261817.patch.gz.gz /usr/src
gunzip /usr/src/grsecurity-2.1.9-2.6.17.7-200607261817.patch.gz.gz
should be .patch.gz
cd
Robert,
I was sure there were no more script problems but this one is back..
7.12. Linux-2.6.17.7
..
make CC="gcc -no-pie -fno-stack-protector-all"
.
change to
.
make CC="gcc -no-pie -fno-stack-protector"
The -fno-stack-protector-all switch is no longer valid
G
--
http://linuxfromscratch.o
Robert,
The heat here in Toronto has baked my brain and it's dumb question time.
I ran jhalfs against the uClibc branch and it died a horrible death
on chap 5.4 uClibc. I noticed you no longer build the uClibc headers in
a separate script, you jump in feet first into a full build. However
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Sábado, 19 de Agosto de 2006 16:51, Chris Staub escribió:
Note: A similar warning should be added to the ALFS webpage, saying that
you should not even attempt ALFS until you can successfully build a
system manually without errors and without any help from support
channels
Hi Robert,
Doing a HLFS/glibc build using jhalfs and I encountered a failure
building 6.9. Linux-Headers-2.6.17.11-08232006
cp -va include/net/* /usr/include/net
is not a valid directory. Am I missing something??
G
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http:/
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi folks,
Incidentally, has anyone done any work on getting the headers_install
approach integrated with jhalfs. Is any specific support required, or
does it just require the "linux-libc-headers" page being replaced with a
"linux headers" page?
yes.. changing the
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Indeed, jhalfs is just a very good tool. I have a plan of building a
new MiniCD with it, by patching the minimum of additional packages
into the LFS book and running the jhalfs script on that patched book.
Is this OK for jhalfs maintainers?
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
George Boudreau wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
George Boudreau wrote:
Just curious, what packages.
At the very minimum:
Ch5: cpio (for initramfs), cdrtools
Ch6: isolinux, dhcpcd, pppd, openssl, lynx, GPM, eject,
livecd-bootscripts.
I added to the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
George Boudreau wrote:
I see. You will create a custom book, LFS + BLFS-lite, and run jhalfs
against the new book.
Well, calling the additions "BLFS-lite" would be a big stretch :) Just
enough tools to read the book, copy-paste commands and get online.
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
George Boudreau wrote:
Just curious, what packages.
At the very minimum:
Ch5: cpio (for initramfs), cdrtools
Ch6: isolinux, dhcpcd, pppd, openssl, lynx, GPM, eject, livecd-bootscripts.
I added to the ability to append custom packages to the build in the
Robert,
With a little hand-holding I was able to convince jhalfs to build most
of HLFS/glibc. At the moment I have bumped into the following errors
when I reach syslogd. (This build is with 2.6.20.4 and the associated
grsecurity patch.) Does the following trace ring any bells?
gcc -DFORTIFY
Robert Connolly wrote:
> For now use:
>
> make RPM_OPT_FLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0"
yup, works like a charm.
>
> Notice the added "_". I'll fix it in svn right now.
>
> robert
>
> On Tuesday March 27 2007 23:06, George Boudreau wrote:
>
The patch sets up calls to /bin/install, should this not be
/usr/bin/install ?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Do any of you know assembly well enough to convert this:
It has been a few years.
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~robert/new/dd.asm
> to something gcc can compile?
Are you looking to convert this to 'C' or just strip the unnecessary code
And remove all the options
Deskin Miller wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Deskin Miller wrote:
>>> [ should the book say anything about 'make -j X' on multi-core systems? ]
>> ['make -j X' where X is number of cores is more or less optimal...]
>>
There are issues when running make with ot
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:38:30AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. I think just to get started on handling multiple
>> arches in LFS, we should focus on non-multilib 64 and just symlink
>> /lib -> /lib64. Hopefully it doesn't bite elsewhere, but I think
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Another jhalfs helper. As has been discussed before, it would be nice to
> mark the screen sections with an attribute to announce that it will be
> installing to the system rather than just working in the source/build
> tree. Manuel suggested adding the attribute userlevel="i
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
>> The first step would be to convert everything to DESTDIR-style
>> installation, and then adapt some existing (Slackware?) scripts to
>> package the result. IMHO, RPM would be overkill here.
>
> Pacman rules!!! :-) Oops, sorry, back on t
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> The LFS project is almost nine years old. LFS 1.0 was released on
> December 16, 1999. That was the year I had moved to Canada, before my
> immigration was even finalized. Earlier that year I started on the LFS
> project.
>
> The details are a bit fuzzy be
On Thursday 28 February 2008 01:06:41 Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> What if LFS wasn't in book form anymore. What if it's an interactive
> program instead. A 100% merge of LFS, BLFS, ALFS, LFS.
This requires a glue point (book, and non book - form). You will have that.
But does your LFS actually _exc
On Thursday 28 February 2008 03:48:47 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > In what way(s) could you do this that diy-linux and clfs do not do
> > already? How is it going to compete with the other two? Or three.. Or
> > four... Or Infinity?
>
> I'
urt" the
other contenders short - term, so that people come back from where they are
from. But, i do believe that it is a bad way to solve this, despite package
management should have been a priority eons ago. As I replied before
elsewhere in this thread, there is to be an odd alternative.
Perhaps this time things go differently since everything is just "different".
> Gerard
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Thursday 28 February 2008 22:33:09 Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, at 02:35 George Makrydakis wrote:
> [...]
>
> > 7) Perhaps some of the people majorly involved in this have understood
> > that it is time to stop behaving the way they did. If that is the ca
On Thursday 28 February 2008 23:59:01 George Makrydakis wrote:
> The pythagorian apophthegm "Not everything can be explained to everyone"
> applies to many chapters in the book(s). I will elaborate on why this
> statement can be proved wrong if specialized "streams" o
On Friday 29 February 2008 00:38:52 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:59:01PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 February 2008 22:33:09 Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> > > c. I was involved in such discussions in the past and I had high hopes
&g
tly
if they wish to. I would have a lot more to say, but it is neither the place,
or the time.
What is odreex? A component framework. A library set. A toolkit. A swiss army
knife.
Expect the release tomorrow at some point. Mailing lists at:
http://lists.odreex.org
Enjoy
George Makrydakis
On Friday 29 February 2008 17:26:43 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 04:20:25PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > I would have some heavy commenting to do on the origin of what you are
> > proposing here but in anycase, time for this will come and you know it.
>
On Friday 29 February 2008 22:26:24 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:45:47PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > You have some issues, sir. You are doing the same thing to everybody
> > else's project you cannot touch. You did the same when you ungraci
On Friday 29 February 2008 23:14:19 Alan Lord wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> ... Lots of stuff about George's crazy email(s).
As if you knew what this is all about. You obviously don't.
> Jeremy,
>
> I really don't know what George is on. I didn't plan to re
On Saturday 01 March 2008 00:55:04 David Jensen wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > This means that there is always the benefit of the doubt. If you want
> > this settled, you know where and how to find me. If this is a
> > misunderstanding ,it is a long standing one and
On Saturday 01 March 2008 18:07:59 David Jensen wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:06:41 -0700
> >
> > Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What if LFS wasn't in book form anymore. What if it's an interactive
> >> program instead. A 100% merge of LFS, BLFS, ALFS, LFS
On Saturday 01 March 2008 20:21:19 David Jensen wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > Actually, what is necessary is to have a system that deals with
> > dependency resolution outside and over any package manager involved in
> > this process, for obvious reasons. Transformi
On Saturday 01 March 2008 22:51:30 Dave Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM, George Makrydakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > This means that the entire design should focus on the fact that you are
> > dealing with a database by itself, not a book.
>
>
On Sunday 02 March 2008 00:08:22 Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, 29. Februar 2008 19:45:47 schrieb George Makrydakis:
> > On Friday 29 February 2008 17:26:43 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > ...
> > For all readers: There are many things you do not know. Choose t
On Sunday 02 March 2008 02:02:23 David Jensen wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > You know what? This can work on windows as well.
>
> LOL, and joe-sixpack visits LFS and clicks install ubuntu clone now!
What is the lol about?
Since when it was impossible to compile cross - plat
ing X. Explaining exactly why X didn't work when you
> tried to do Y (the specific limits you ran into, etc.), on the other
> hand, is much better. At minimum, that way the other person will see
> places that you had issues, and can perhaps figure out another way
> around them.
Proper programming does not have any limits in implementation. But you cannot
use but the right tool for the right job. As I have said, I have my own
project to implement around this, so I am not trying to neither "convince" or
make anyone use my proposal. You can use whatever you want because there are
always alternatives.
Enjoy, thanks,
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Monday 03 March 2008 05:03:56 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > First of all, Joe Sixpack is David's term.
>
> Yeah, I know that...
>
> > Second, I did not use Windows before Linux :)
>
> I'm not talking about you.
I do know that, b
[X] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[ ] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[ ] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
[ ] I deviate a lot from BLFS (not counting package updates as d
On Monday 03 March 2008 16:07:38 George Makrydakis wrote:
> Writing the same in C++ uses 10% of these features if not less and its power
shines when you do not use it as a C superset.
to :
Writing the same in C++ uses 10% of the LANGUAGE FEATURES if not less and its
power shines when you
On Monday 03 March 2008 20:57:48 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:38PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > Cross platform code runs everywhere.
>
> Um, yeah (at least in theory), but does that actually help? See the
>
> question below that you didn
On Monday 03 March 2008 22:00:39 George Makrydakis wrote:
> On Monday 03 March 2008 20:57:48 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> [snip]
> It's irrelevant to what I was saying, yes. I wasn't saying "we should
> let users read from any OS/browser/whatever" on its own. I wa
nd the pedantic
route, then this is an overkill. If you don't, then it is a viable
alternative with even bigger long term potential than what it seems right
now.
> --
> Alexander E. Patrakov
George Makrydakis
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
lease checklist as those entities should probably be replaced with
> real values in the book's source since they will be static. I haven't
> looked yet, but I don't think it should be difficult.
>
Changed jhalfs svn to accommodate udev-config and bootscripts, skips
md5
d a system from
scratch for some reason the jhalfs script is just what the doctor
ordered. (and as a bonus it grabs all the latest mods from the svn
doc). It is not supposed to and does not replace the LFS book but is a
supplement.
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
mewhat) a uClibc chap5/6 build
when I stumbled on the missing script..
George.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Robert,
I saw your query in the uClibc list and the reply.. whoopee, HLFS
now compiles.. uClibc-0.9.28/linux-2.6.14.6 (using jhahlfs)
+MALLOC_GLIBC_COMPAT=y
George
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
59 matches
Mail list logo
