Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a suggestion to update the acknowledgment. I wonder if it's not the
> process I'm supposed to use to suggest such changes.
>
> Best regards, JPM
When the book is released, the website will need to be updated as well.
Is the location of the translat
Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:54:04AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Greg Schafer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:52:13PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/linux-2.6.27.1-perl_compat-1.patch
>
John Frankish wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build on a playstation 3 with yellow dog linux v6
>
> Although binutils-2.18 builds OK, gcc-4.3.2 fails after the first
> bootstrap pass succeeds and then gcc tries to compile a second
> version of itself. The failure is "gcc compiler cannot build
>
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Randy here, in that as we don't modify the
> upstream sources at all, there's no need to 'LFS' in the version string.
> That, to me, suggests that there's something LFS specific about the sources.
> I'd think it would suggest the same to upst
Greetings,
About a month or so ago I'd said I'd start looking into writing a
section for LFS that deals with pros/cons of using full 64-bit
libs/binaries in Linux, since LFS is considering adding in 64-bit support.
I came across this article:
http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpost.cfm?threadid
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I wouldn't bother benchmarking it. Every single time that a bit width
> increase has come along so far, it has eventually won out (except Itanium,
> which came along too early and without enough attention paid to having
> some sort of backward compatibility). I don't think
In section 6.10, Readjusting the Toolchain we perform about 3 sed
expressions to specs file. The first one looks like this:
-e 's@/tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2@/lib/[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Also, there is a prominent note before this sed command stating:
"If working on a platform where the name of th
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> We can simplify the sed expression and get rid of the note entirely if we
>> change it to:
>>
>> -e 's@/tools@@g'
>>
>> Anyone have any objections to this change?
>
> I'd just
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote:
>
>> One other thing I wonder about, in the find 6.4 book. As I noted before,
>> one of my earlier problems was that libtool was ending up with hardcoded
>> references to /tools/bin/grep, which I corrected by moving grep to be
>> build a little earlier. How
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> But this helped me...
>
> Btw I'd appreciate if youl'd make a notice to this patch in that (and the
> other chapters as well) in chapter 5.7 of LFS 6.4...
This patch is unecessary in LFS, since we create a symlink at the end of
gcc-pass1, like so:
ln -vs libgcc.a `gcc -prin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Anything else?
Oh, I also forgot. We could give some thought to using DIY's new build
method, which is essentially building the first pass of binutils and gcc
as cross compilers, cross-compiling the first build of Glibc and
building natively after that. There&#
I would prefer if it didn't take us another year (or more) to push out a
7.0 release. Or, even if it did, as long as the time is well spent.
I.E., we are actually pursuing the new features we slated and not just
letting package updates slowly creep in.
I know we have listed things before, but c
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 intltool >= 0.30... ./configure: line 3519:
intltool-update: command not found
fo
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
xorg-server because pixman is missing.
If I build and install pixman as per the instr
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Yeah, pixman is now required for both the xserver and cairo. I thought
> DJ added it, but maybe I'm just guessing.
It's not part of the Xorg Library section (which is where it appears to
belong) and I didn't encounter it anywhere else.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> Anything else?
>>>
>> Oh, I also forgot. We could give some thought to using DIY's new build
>> method
> Some? I thought this was a no brainer. During the big
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>
>> In a (native) sysroot scenario, anything and _everything_ can be found
>> on the host.
>
> Here's a Binutils thread about a sysrooted ld which touches upon what I'm
> talking about:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-08/msg00060.html
Intere
Ok, so we have a fair amount of items we'd like to push into 7.0, some
of which, work has already begun.
As far as step-by-step plan of attack goes, how does this sound?
1. Move to DIY's new build method in trunk. If we ignore multilib and
any extra arch support for this step, the changes requi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I've already got the trivial patch that upgrades Udev, but doesn't strip out
> Udev-config. It's been build-tested but not boot-tested currently. It may
> have an impact on the minimum host-kernel pre-req, but I don't have anything
> to test on to confirm/deny this. M
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> 1. Move to DIY's new build method in trunk. If we ignore multilib and
>> any extra arch support for this step, the changes required aren't
>> actually that many, and they all take place pretty early in chapter 5.
>
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> 1. Move to DIY's new build method in trunk. If we ignore multilib and
>> any extra arch support for this step, the changes required aren't
>> actually that many, and they all take place pretty early in chapte
Greg Schafer wrote:
> This is nothing like the new build method at all. It appears you've taken
> stuff from the old jh branch, which is now completely outdated because
> it's based on the old build method.. Ughh. Not sure where you're going
> dude, but this is definitely the wrong way to do 64-bit
Hello,
I started working on bringing in compatible boot loaders for use with
x86_64 (and, possibly, PowerPC). The idea at first was just to move all
bootloaders down to chapter 8 and list which ones are compatible for
which arch/setup.
I have started on that route already, see here:
http://ww
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> That said, I've not tried it out myself yet. Maybe in my next build!
Testing it out now...
Requires LZO, so if we were to use it we could move LZO from BLFS over
to chapter 6 of LFS. One less package for BLFS devs to monitor... :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been running it since march and it happily boots everything I have
> on the box. This includes OS X and WinXP i addition to LFS. Cant
> remember any special problems either, but this is close to 9 months
> back. I do remember using the instructions from CBLFS
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/12/4 Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> That said, I've not tried it out myself yet. Maybe in my next build!
>> Testing it out now...
>
> Please take time to create the following setup
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/12/4 Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> OTOH, since (B)LFS doesn't support LVM2 anyway, I don't consider the
>> failure of this test a showstopper.
>
> But the docs are still in too bad shape. E.g., the wiki page
> http://grub.enbug.org/CommandList do
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> It worked well enough even if I did have problems with the menu list
> initially. I can't recall the last time I have looked at this or given it
> any thought. Perhaps I should take a glance there again as I was ( past
> tense ) doing some LFS work earlier this year on PowerP
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/12/4 Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> OTOH, since (B)LFS doesn't support LVM2 anyway, I don't consider the
>> failure of this test a showstopper.
>
> But the docs are still in too bad shape. E.g., the wiki page
Check this out: http://wiki.debian.or
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Check this out: http://wiki.debian.org/Grub/Grub2
>
> Yes, they have good manual pages in Debian. Thanks for the link. Let's
> hope this documentation will be accepted upstream.
>
> It is still worth ment
...Mostly.
With revision 8755, the new build method from DIY is in place with the
exception of support for multilib. (More on that in a second.)
I tried to make as many textual changes as I could to keep the accuracy
of the book on a high level, but I'm sure I missed some things that
reference
Jim Gifford wrote:
> It seems now that LFS is ready to go into the world that CLFS has been
> in for a while. There seems to be a lot of discussions, that are going
> to be a duplication of work, and no one from LFS reaching out to the
> CLFS team for input on what issues we have seen and what y
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:58:24 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Another side note, jhalfs can't currently handle the new build method
>> becuase it hard-codes the build user's .bashrc file. A slight tweak in
>>
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Oh, how trivial! Thanks muchly, the build had only gotten part way through
> gcc-pass1, so I didn't lose too time thanks to your quick reply!
Glad to help. :) Looking forward to seeing how the build goes.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FA
Jim Gifford wrote:
> It seems now that LFS is ready to go into the world that CLFS has been
> in for a while. There seems to be a lot of discussions, that are going
> to be a duplication of work, and no one from LFS reaching out to the
> CLFS team for input on what issues we have seen and what y
Charles wrote:
> Hi LFS and CLFS developers,
>
> As an ardent follower of these projects, I'd be very glad to see the
> two projects be one. In my opinion, they are gaining the same result
> by different techniques. If DIY is trying some cross compiling and LFS
> may go after it, then what's left
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>>
>> Too bad that they don't practice what they preach.
>>
>>
> Gee this what your looking for http://cblfs.cross-lfs.org/index.php/License
>
> I see credit given? You owe an apology.
C'mon guys. This is the type of stuff that creates the rift
Greg Schafer wrote:
> No. You've also omitted perhaps the most interesting feature of the whole
> thing - the ability to migrate from a 32-bit system to a 64-bit system. As
> it currently stands, you're forcing folks to start from a 64-bit system if
> they want 64-bit. Useless.
Greg, c'mon. You kn
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> Knock it off. I don't come to DIY and disparage your work.
>
> Huh? Get over yourself dude. You've *always* taken things so personally.
> Grow a thick skin.
I'm not personally bothered in the least.
&
Greg Schafer wrote:
> the Acknowledgments page will suffice. "... Technical Writer and Architect
> of the Next Generation 64-bit-enabling Build Method" or similar.
I'll give you a day or so to decide on the exact wording you prefer, or
for someone else to offer a suggestion. Then I'll add this in
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>> Your violating his license if you don't put it in. Why play these petty
>> games, you need to include his license and the terms of his license,
>> since you have fully stated that your borrowed from his work.
>
> Jeremy's request is reasonable, Jim. I
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> In academia, the accepted method of using other authors' ideas is to just
> create
> a bibliographic entry. In BLFS, the first section of the Introduction is
> Acknowledgments, but there is no similar section in LFS. Perhaps a similar
> section should be added to the LFS
Reece Dunn wrote:
> Is this an intentional change - for example, as a result of the new
> build method - or is it an accidental result of the merge of Jeremy's
> 64-bit support? That is, does the --target= remove the need for the
> CC= override?
The use of -B/usr/bin/ in the past was to force the
Ryan Oliver wrote:
[snip]
> Just some thoughts
Ryan, thanks for the feedback. I don't have anything specific to say in
connection with any of your points yet (I guess no one else does
either), but I will be looking them over in more detail as I have a free
moment, so I'm bookmarking this thre
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> ABI issues. Or at least, last time I remember seeing this idea on some
> list or other (perhaps it was CLFS? perhaps DIY? can't remember for
> sure), this was the reason for keeping /lib64 and /lib.
>
> The dynamic linker *must* be /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 for a 64-bit
Rob Thornton wrote:
> I look forward to seeing the community unite and make itself stronger!
> xLFS has been an excellent source for me and anything that makes it
> stronger makes life better for my next build!
Hi Rob,
I would love to see what you and Robert C. have suggested happen.
Especiall
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
>> I still don't get it. Does the current LFS leadership get to decide
>> what every project that ever "forked" from LFS can and cannot do?
>
> No, and I don't think it's even being tried. There are some expressions of
> regret that there are perso
Ken Moffat wrote:
> I'm flattered, but disconcerted - aren't all editors supposed to
> take a balanced view ?
Yes, they are. And I think for the most part they have. What I really
meant was, from my perspective, you seem to have managed to keep
yourself separate from the social issues, which is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If anyone with privileges to Quantum could look in and see why the
> Quantum server is so bogged down, I sure would appreciate it. It seems
> as though it has been really, really sluggish the last few days.
>
> Top shows that HTTP processes have the CPU running
Nathan Coulson wrote:
> I have been using a modified LFS (built for 32/64bit at the same time)
> and it worked well until the latest changes were introduced to trunk
> (that use the -B flag). Specifically GCC pass2 does not find crt0.o
> 32bit (just see's the 64bit). I was curious if this is what
Greg Schafer wrote:
> By installing stuff into different prefixes, you are forced to butcher the
> GCC source to coax it into searching the right places. Why? Because many
> of the toolchain search paths are keyed off of $prefix. There is much less
> hackery involved if you install into a single pr
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Sorry, you're wrong and clearly not getting it. Meanwhile, it's apparent
> you've turned into a Ryan nut hugger, just like the rest of the CLFS
> crowd. God help LFS!
>
> I honestly don't care anymore. LFS is a project without direction, without
> leadership and apparently ha
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ryan Oliver wrote:
> There is technical information being passed. Simply look
> at what is being said, and don't worry how it is being
> said.
Let's say that you decided to eat at my restaurant. You sit down and
order some food. After some time, I return and slam down ont
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Can somebody do me a favour and give me both a high overview and a
> detailed technical nitty-gritty overview of those three (are there
> more?) methods - how they compare to each other.
You've summarized it pretty well. What is currently in trunk is based on
current DI
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> This method uses sysroot functionality in GCC and Binutils to help
>> 'mask' off the host system further.
>
> Huh? No! It's quite the opposite! This clearly demonstrates you don't
> understand the sysro
Greg Schafer wrote:
> You're making the changes in *both* passes. Unnecessary hackery and you
> know it. Stop blurring the truth.
I fail to see how I could blur the truth about something that is
publicly available for all to read. Of course the changes are there in
both passes, I never said othe
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Umm, that bug report is about Pass 2. Your using the sysroot feature in
> Pass 1. See a problem?
No, sorry, I don't. In the comments of that bug report the dev suggests
using sysroot for pass 1 of gcc.
Also, haven't you noticed that making use of sysroot in pass one
elimin
Greg Schafer wrote:
>> Also, haven't you noticed that making use of sysroot in pass one
>> eliminates the scenario that is causing you trouble in pass 2, thereby
>> removing the need for the patch?
>
> Huh? Not at all. Please, JH, explain how this is so.
I'm not a gcc internals expert, so I'm n
On Nov 28, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> other packages - and you really could use another system
> on which to do those downloads because LFS itself doesn't
> include even a console browser or wget or an ftp client
> (that's what BLFS is for.
Actually, LFS does include a basic ftp client
On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:43 AM, TheOldFellow wrote:
> The instructions really should be in BLFS. That way peeps can roll
> their own. This isn't IMO LFS material.
>
"peeps", eh? Someone hijacked TheOldFellow's keyboard, methinks.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> I still haven't built a recent LFS system, but I'm about to
> restart (x86_64), and I'm checking my scripts match the
> current development book, and working out what the
> presence of the {,/usr}/lib64 symlinks from 6.5 will do to my
> BLFS scripts
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 LFS needs in order to build mul
On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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
>> any
On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> No problem. I think the idea of a hint is appropriate, but we haven't
> heard from you for a long time. I didn't know if you were up to speed on
> the decision we made.
Yeah, thanks. I needed a serious break. It was good that I did, too. I have
Hi Everyone,
Last summer I worked on a mockup for a new LFS site design. I showed it to
Gerard and he liked it, and helped with suggestions to tweak it to a point he
was generally happy with. Shortly thereafter, Gerard 'disappeared', and I
haven't heard anything more from him.
I'm curious what
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Welcome back...again :-)
Thanks. I'm not sure how 'back' I am, but I'm still interested in what goes on
in LFS-land.
> It looks better than the current site, certainly.
>
> I think I'd prefer to see the green menu bar & blue menu bar swapped
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Now, if we (err, you! :)) could 'theme' wiki.linuxfromscratch.org
> similarly, I'd prefer to have all of www.linuxfromscratch.org under the
> trac system, if that's possible?
Apologies, I actually missed that you said you prefer to have the
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. :) Some type of CMS really makes things much
easier.
Of course, you want one that is easily theme-able. Most are these days...
--
JH
--
http://linuxfroms
On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'm not sure that the LFS website has enough content or rate-of-change of
> content that a
> full blown CMS is required. I could be wrong of course :-)
Well, in this context, Trac is (nearly) a CMS. In any case, it allows you to
edit conten
On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Yeah, I guess I didn't really make my point clear. What I was trying to say
> was that I'm
> not sure the overhead of having both trac and plone is worth it for our
> relatively small
> site. If trac is 'good enough' for our needs, then let
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 still works as it should, I suppose this is r
On Apr 1, 2010, at 5:39 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Will you please create a ticket.
Sure.
> Have you reported this upstream?
Nope, not yet. Although I saw that the issue was reported to Debian's Bug
Tracking site
in December. They don't appear to have touched it yet though. (Unless I'm
missin
Just a small nitpick.
The Iproute2 page says: "The arpd binary included in this package is
dependent..."
That sounds like there is actually a compiled binary shipped in the package.
Might be better worded
as something like: "The arpd binary produced through this package..."
--
JH
--
http://li
interested in the concept, the project site is
here: http://dev.lightcube.us/projects/lightcubeos and anyone is welcome to
help out. Feel free to register there and poke around, ask questions, offer
suggestions, whatever. :-)
Thanks,
Jeremy Huntwork
LightCube Solutions
http://www.lightcubesol
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
> configure: updating cache ./config.cache
> configure: er
On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I can't recommend the 2.6.33 series for the kernel until this gets
> straightened out. OTOH, this may be a gcc-4.5.0 issue. I can try
> building 2.6.30.2 or 2.6.32.8 with gcc-4.5.0 and see if that is any
> better. If those segfault, it's the
On Mar 19, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> Yeah, I guess I didn't really make my point clear. What I was trying to say
>> was that I'm
>> not sure the overhead of having both trac and plone is
On Apr 16, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> I didn't comment earlier, but I find the blue and green backgrounds too dark
> (at the bottom - the top is ok), which surprisingly makes them slightly hard
> to
> read on my LCD.
The blue and green backgrounds on the bottom? Do you mean the link co
On Apr 16, 2010, at 6:19 PM, 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't
> see the value in changing.
>
> Ken, us old guys need to stick together. :)
Well, it certainly "does th
On Apr 16, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Sorry, it was obvious to me when I wrote it. The green backgrounds
> are graduated from top to bottom of each box. On a quick glance I
> thought the blue ones were too, but now I'm less sure about the main
> batch (BLFS ... Patches) - those are ok,
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 be having a problem entering 6.6
On May 3, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I have never liked cgi. I'd much rather see a php version. It looks
> like one was started a few years ago, but never finished.
>
> Volunteers?
Well, since no one else volunteered, I'll see if I can fit this in.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscrat
On May 14, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> Related question, although maybe it belongs on support - how do you
>> get grub2 (1.97, if it matters) to boot in single mode? I need to
>> fsck my /home partition manually (fsck'd after nn boots, came up with
>> errors), a
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
belongs on the home page, though.
I really mean no personal offense, but I don't know
Hey Guys,
Someone just forwarded this link to me. The presentation is a little silly, but
there's a lot of good points he makes:
http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1715
I think LFS could take a few pointers from this.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
Hi All,
As you probably know by now, recent gcc's make use of PPL (Parma Polyhedra
Library) and Cloog-PPL (A branch of the Code Generator in the Polyhedral Model
making use of PPL for polyhedral functions). If I gather correctly, LFS has up
to now avoided including this in favor of sticking clo
Hey,
Not sure if anybody else ran into this, but just something to look out for with
gmp:
My machine is an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, however I was running a Virtual
Machine and building an LFS-type build using a 32-bit kernel, so my
architecture was i686. When I went to build gmp, it detecte
On Jul 18, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> The note on the GMP page
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/gmp.html
> says that this problem only occurs if you have set CFLAGS. Did you set
> CFLAGS?
Aha, thanks for spotting that. I don't recall setting CFLAGS an
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Andrew Benton wrote
> I've just tried compiling ppl-0.10.2. configure fails because it relies
> on an obsolete function that has been removed from gmp-5.0.1:
> ...
> checking how to link with libgmpxx... -lgmpxx -lgmp
> checking for the GMP library version 4.1.3 or abo
On Jul 18, 2010, at 1:31 PM, William Immendorf wrote:
> Oh, and some more stuff is needed before PPL/ClooG goes into LFS:
>
> * G++ needs to be made a host system requirement, due to the fact
> that PPL requires a working C++ compiler.
> * GMP needs to be moved out of the GCC build (I don't think
On Jul 6, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Stuart Stegall wrote:
> I would suggest reading something like:
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
I just spent the last hour reading through this, many thanks for the link :)
I'm definitely impressed by the functionality systemd is looking to provide.
I'
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Now, if we (err, you! :)) could 'theme' wiki.linuxfromscratch.org
> similarly, I'd prefer to have all of www.linuxfromscratch.org under the
> trac system, if that's possible?
So this comment inspired me to try to work up a usable all-in-one
On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:53 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If we were setting up a new project, I might want to use Redmine, but we
> manage LFS using Subversion, Mailman, and Trac and have been using those
> tools for about 6 years. The main web pages are standard xhtml. I'm
> reluctant to replace o
On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:06 AM, Robert Xu wrote:
> Just a curious thought - what theme did you use?
I modified the classic theme to use a similar style to the one I demoed earlier.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe
On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:13 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
Whoa! That's a lot of questions... :) I'll try to answer them when I get back
home, but until then I've made you an administrator so you can see all that's
there (in the front-end, anyway).
> Anyway, I've given it a little run through, and I like it.
On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:13 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Some technical questions: What is the authentication method?
The default seems to be some form of basic authentication. I haven't delved
into the code to see if it does any sort of password obscuring or not, but as
you say we could run it over HTT
On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:57 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> No. no need to modify it. Besides it would only add additional security
> concerns. Just would be nice to elevate someone who is a pretty regular
> contributor to an editor role (would save Bruce, Matt, and others? some
> admin work). It's not like
On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Here's where Redmine comes in. To me, Redmine is everything Trac is, but
> better. Besides providing one-stop management for several projects, it also
> has some nice additional features. For example, users created on red
It's interesting what logs will show.
For instance, the access logs for community.linuxfromscratch.org show 117
unique IP addresses viewing the site yesterday, and 76 unique IPs today.
Combine the two lists and there are a total of 167 unique IPs. Even taking into
account robots and individuals
Yaacov,
Thanks for this, this is exactly the sort of discussion I was after...
On Jul 27, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Yaacov-Yoseph Weiss wrote:
> Just wondering, how many people are signed up to this email list? This
> might give a
> better indication of how interested the (potential) community is.
It's
1 - 100 of 1449 matches
Mail list logo
