On Friday 08 July 2011 17:55:09 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been working on bootscripts. Basically, I'm rewriting them to get
> a better understanding. I may end up throwing them out completely but I
> want to discuss the issue of error handling.
>
> There are three bootscript files that use the
>
I must be doing something wrong, so please someone confirm or refute this:
coreutils-8.14 as per the 7.0 book installs
/usr/libexec/coreutils/libstdbuf.so. I had to pass --libexecdir=/usr/lib in
chaper 6 in order to fix the location as /usr/lib/coreutils/libstdbuf.so.
Anyone?
IvanK.
--
http:
On Saturday 12 November 2011 15:28:35 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ivan Kabaivanov wrote:
> > I must be doing something wrong, so please someone confirm or refute
> > this:
> >
> > coreutils-8.14 as per the 7.0 book installs
> > /usr/libexec/coreutils/libstdbuf.so. I
Hi,
I must be doing something wrong cause LFS-7.1 has been out for a while and
noone has complained yet about udev-181/182.
Here's my problem: I have a custom initramfs that works perfectly well with
udev-173. When the *only* thing I supplant in the initramfs image is
udev-173 with udev-181/
On Thursday 29 March 2012 00:24:46 Ivan Kabaivanov wrote:
> mount -o mode=0755,nosuid -t tmpfs tmpfs /dev -o mode=755
A few minutes after I sent the email I saw what I was doing wrong:
mount -o mode=0755,nosuid -t tmpfs tmpfs /dev -o mode=755
should be
mount -o mode=0755,nosuid -t devtm
On Monday 16 July 2012 20:07:25 Armin K. wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 07:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > I have updated LFS for the new udev extracted from systemd. The
> > instructions and package locations should be OK and I've regenerated the
> > book's html and other tarballs on quantum.
> >
> > Text
On Tuesday 17 July 2012 03:20:39 Ken Moffat wrote:
[snip]
>
> [splutters!] but it wastes a byte!
>
> ĸen [ NOT known for conciseness in my emails, so treat that last
> remark 'cum grano salis' (with a pinch of salt, if my latin is
> holding up) ]
That sounds like the title of a sophisticated por
On Thursday 26 July 2012 16:32:26 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm trying to write a script to be run in Section 7.2 to initialize
> 70-persistent-net.rules. I'm using, as a base, the udev-182 rule
> 75-persistent-net-generator.rules.
>
> I have a problem in that this rule uses a variable SUBSYSTEMS. It
Jon Fullmer wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
> so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
>
> Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
> generate the specs file:
>
> gcc -dumpspecs | sed '[EMAIL PROT
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 12:10, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:39 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> The question is, do we want x86_64 to
On Thursday 11 October 2007 20:39, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well today I finished a sparc64 build based on the jh branch. Has anyone
> else done a native build on sparc hardware adapted from recent LFS?
>
Jeremy,
thanks so much for bringing this up. I've been compiling successfully L
Hi all,
I believe there's a untriggered bug in chapter 6, Re-adjusting the toolchain.
We've just entered the chroot, installed the kernel headers and built glibc.
At this point we still only have /tools/bin/gcc. We've just built glibc so we
have it under /lib.
Now we re-adjust the gcc (the /to
On Monday 10 December 2007, Chris Staub wrote:
> Ivan Kabaivanov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I believe there's a untriggered bug in chapter 6, Re-adjusting the
> > toolchain.
> >
> > We've just entered the chroot, installed the kernel headers and
On Monday 10 December 2007 16:41, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While we are talking about the evolution of LFS, now seems like a good
> time to announce to the wider LFS community the availability of a Next
> Generation build method.
>
> The main advantages of the new method are:
>
> - sane x86_6
On Monday 10 December 2007, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While we are talking about the evolution of LFS, now seems like a good
> time to announce to the wider LFS community the availability of a Next
> Generation build method.
Greg,
is there another mailing list where you discuss matters surrou
On Monday 25 February 2008 10:37, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to
On Saturday 01 March 2008, Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> within the current discussion i try to start a balloon again which is named
> multi-platform. I do not mean it in the way of cross-compiling but building
> a LFS system for the current running maschine. Which ever this machine is.
> Stayi
On Monday 03 March 2008 04:55, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Alexander,
I've added three new options that are important to me and to IPCop.
Thanks,
IvanK.
[ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (incl
I was wondering if the devs are, perhaps, working behind the scenes on putting
together some PM as per the long thread(s) from a few weeks ago. Is there
still interest in and momentum behind this idea?
Thanks,
IvanK.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linu
19 matches
Mail list logo
