Re: Binutils first pass compilure failure

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, IM Meen wrote: > On a Celeron 1,7GHz, 256MB SDRAM, HDD 20GB PATA, i got > this error during the first Binutils pass, on a Ubuntu > Hoary 5.04/XFCE. Hope this helps. I'll try it again, > maybe this time it will work. > Almost certainly the wrong list - unless you're arguing a

Re: Change r6572 Roadmap

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: > In my > book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had > to be a better solution. Hi Jim, Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of lib64|lib), or indeed pure64

Re: Remaining 6.1 bugs

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > This is a list of the remaining 6.1 bugs that need package updates: > > Bug Package Assigned to > > 1350 Kerberos > 1369 Tidy Randy > 1430 LIBPCAP > 1443 Firefox > 1444 Thunderbird Richard > 1475 Ethereal Randy > - Bruce, I tak

Re: stupid newbie question

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Jaap Struyk wrote: > Op za 30-07-2005, om 17:19 schreef Jaap Struyk: > > > What the 2 have in common is: > > asm operand 1 probably doesn't match constraints > > and > > impossible constraint in `asm' > > Both modules build fine on a clean kernel, but the errors don't make > >

zlib symlink from /usr

This is prompted by upgrading zlib to 1.2.3 (thanks to Matt for the heads up). Everything in my system using a shared libz is linked against libz.so.1 (good), but we persist in offering packages a symlink from /usr/lib/libz.so to /usr/lib/libz.so.1.2.3 [ png bit me when I overlooked that in my sc

Re: Chapter 5 GCC nit

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: > Hi all, > > A minor nit I noticed in the Chapter 5 GCC instructions (all versions): > > Noted in the SBU times between Pass 1 and Pass 2 is that they seem to > be reversed. Pass 1 is shown to be 4.4 SBU and Pass 2 is 11.0. Shouldn't > these be the other

Re: Upcoming util-linux

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, steve crosby wrote: > Just a heads up - util-linux 2.13 will remove several items, as per > the following changelog entry for pre1 > > Changes: > GNU autoconf/automake/libtool are now used for building. schedutils > were added. Support for curses implementations other than ncur

Re: LFS-stable, errata and new packages

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Torsten Vollmann wrote: > Hi Folks. > > > I think of this because I want to run a stable LFS on my main system but if a > package is updated and put into LFS-trunk I'm always wondering if it could be > applied to LFS-stable, too, or if it would mix up the build process because

Re: System clock hastening

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Jens Olav Nygaard wrote: > > My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour, > > > Any ideas? > > Yep, I just use ntp (see BLFS). My hardware clock seems to gain even > when the system is switched off! I have a bootscript that syncs the

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: > I plan to look at dhcpcd in a few minutes Well, the good news is it seems to be maintained again (a 2.0.0 version at berlios.de incorporating recent patches from debian and gentoo). The bad news is the layout of the source has been tidied up, moving

Re: New LFS Developer

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Please join me in welcoming Ken Moffat to the LFS development team. Thanks to the people who've welcomed me, hope I prove worthy of it. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/

Re: Cross LFS - Pure 64 - Bootloaders [RFC]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Andy Neebel wrote: > > I haven't been able to do LFS on my tower for a while, but I know that > I had grub building in 64bit on it once. I have an x86_64, and iirc, > grub 0.93 didn't like 64bit, but 0.94 did. That's about the newest > grub that I have used as I haven't had

Security patches

Hi, One of the things I've started spending more time on recently is trying to ensure my systems are patched against known problems. [ Ah, the good old days when I only had a handful of applications to worry about ]. Most of the packages I'm trying to monitor are not in the LFS book, but a few o

Re: Security patches

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Archaic wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 09:47:06PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > This vulnerability should be low risk for most of us, but I think it's > > the sort of thing that ought to be applied. > > Agreed. > Hmm, I think I s

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: > Ken, Ryan, Doug, and others > > Do we need to make a change here for the pure64 build, or is further > testing needed? > I haven't got into this yet, so I can only compare with my own pure64 using older versions of the toolchain (glibc-2.3.4). My ldd has

Re: Shared library permissions

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Hi folks. Does anyone know why shared libraries need the execute bit set on them? My most recent build (gcc4-based) has most[1] *.so files installed with 755 permissions. As it's so consistent, I'm assuming there is a reason for them to be execut

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: Ken, Ryan, Doug, and others Do we need to make a change here for the pure64 build, or is further testing needed? Well, I've got through this part now, using 20050821, building pure64 from my own pure64.

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: Ken, You may want to see what I did in the book, I've gotten several builds working on MIPS64 and Sparc64(minus the bootloader issue.) Everything went into /lib no problem, I think this may be an x86_64 issue only. The reason I say this is that the ld

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: Sack-cloth and ashes time. I missed the "slibdir=/lib" part. Since LFS is all about learning, anybody like to point me to a HOWTO on learning to read what the book says, rather than what I think it says ? Thanks for the clue, Jim. So

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: No problems Ken. But what do you think of my reasoning on the error about the different symlink names for ld? At the moment, that sounds plausible (I've just posted about the perl script bailing out). I used to have a --disable-multilib in my scripts,

Re: 7.0-cross-lfs-20050818-x86_64 section 10.3 glibc installation

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: No problems Ken. But what do you think of my reasoning on the error about the different symlink names for ld? At the moment, that sounds plausible (I've just posted about the perl script bailing out). I us

Re: Firefox and profile locking: Chapter 2

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: [cc'd to BLFS-Dev from BLFS-Support] Archaic wrote these words on 06/25/05 12:01 CST: [snip what is already instructions in the book] make -C browser/installer && cd dist && mv firefox /opt/firefox-${version} && ln -sf /opt/firefox-${version} /opt

Datapoint, x86_64-64

Test results from a pure64 build (gawk was still 3.1.4, although I doubt that makes a difference here). This is just intended as an initial marker, for binutils the book expects no errors - maybe we'll change that if people confirm these results. This build was from an LFS-6.1 pure64 host.

Re: GCC-4 (more nagging) :-)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, William Harrington wrote: I see now that the ping/ftp/inetutils issue is sort of a non-issue any more now that a patch was sent in which fixes inetutils. Do I need to send the patch for inetutils for ftp and libinetutil to the patches group or will the patch be in the patc

Sed assumptions

OK, you guys have finally dragged me kicking and screaming towards building with gcc4 (well-known old compilers? I love 'em!). And sitting in the chapter 5 gcc pass 2 instructions I see some 'sed -i' commands. Me, I love these, but have we agreed to raise the bar for host systems so that they

Re: Sed assumptions

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Ken, be more deliberate. Say this instead. "The book needs to be fixed at the GCC-Pass2 instructions in Chapter 5 because it uses what may be an unsupported sed command." Better yet, just jump in there and fix it yourself. :-) I was wondering if we'

Re: Pushing UTF-8 support into LFS

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Or, to address both of those points, make it LFS-patches policy to simply reject any patch that hasn't been submitted upstream! :) Matt. OK, so we can drop most of the lfs-specific patches for starters. And what happens when we do send somethin

Re: optimization for lfs-book (6.5 Creating Directories)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Archaic wrote: On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 04:13:24PM +0200, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote: Just a little change that is easier to type and also shows a new feature in bash-3.0 (so I think it would be nice to use it): In "6.5. Creating Directories

Expected glibc test failures with gcc4 ?

A question for all of the people champing at the bit to get gcc4 into the mainline book - does *anybody* see glibc passing the maths tests (float, double, ifloat, idouble) in chapter 6 ? If they pass for you, what CPU ? I've got a reasonably new AMD processor (San Diego athlon64, slumming

Re: Expected glibc test failures with gcc4 ?

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build > grep Error Build-System/Installed-System/glibc*/check.log make[2]: *** [/build/glibc-build/math/test-float.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/build/glibc-build/math/test-double.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/build/glibc-build/math/te

Re: cannot boot

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, David Ciecierski wrote: It most certainly does have to be selected. Yeah, my sys runs like a charm with it :-) Just a small question: with grsec every mount and unmount produces a few lines of text saying who is {,u}mounting something. Can that be turned off? I mean, it's

Re: Expected glibc test failures with gcc4 ?

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Greg Schafer wrote: There is a patch available to fix most of the failures, but not all: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2005-03/msg00067.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/glibc-cvs/2005-q2/msg00239.html There is also available a dubious workaround: http://www.d

gcc4 - proposed changes to glibc check

So everybody on i686 can expect *some* failures in the glibc math tests with gcc-4. I've got the patch from Drepper's (whoops, from _Mr_ Drepper's) commit (thanks, Greg) which solves half of the failures. Looking at fedora4, even with their ability to selectively pick fixes from CVS they use

Re: gcc4 - proposed changes to glibc check

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/05/05 11:10 CST: Good work, Ken. FWIW, I think that the SBU and disk space should include building all locales. Here are my figures. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Build-System/Installed-System/glibc-2.3.5 > cat sbu

Re: gcc4 - proposed changes to glibc check

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: Thanks, I'm only really concerned about chapter 6 at the moment. I seem to remember somebody (Alexander, perhaps) suggesting that the correct method is to install the required locales, which for me equates to the mi

Re: Error in chapter 6.14

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Olivier Seubert wrote: Yeah, you asked this on -support yesterday, and I replied that the config.log you need to look at is in the libstdc++-v3 directory. If you didn't seem my response, it should be in the archives. Please take this back to lfs-support. Ken -- das ein

Re: X86_64 Multi-lib cross-build glibc32/64 gcc4 __thread failure

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: Interesting!! So either GCC is not compiling Glibc with NPTL correctly, or we have a GCC 4.0.1 issue. Matt Darcy is trying the Currently GLIBC snapshot. If the snapshot works well, we should seriously consider using that in the

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Here's a current list of packages known to compile using GCC-4. The list is updated as I go (automated). Build scripts for any of the packages you see on this list are available upon request. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~randy/installed_packages.tx

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: and all is well. I saw that both you and DJ are not having issues with GNOME-VFS, so I'm wondering if y'all use FAM? If so, can you think of anything why *I'm* getting these errors? FAM ? I stripped that out of my scripts a while ago, couldn't see an

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:34 CDT: FAM ? I stripped that out of my scripts a while ago, couldn't see any benefits from it, and haven't missed it. Sorry. Hmmm Did you read the big note that you get when GNOME-VFS do

Re: Xorg GCC-4 issues

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, Going through the book adding patches to support GCC-4 I noticed that I put a patch in the LFS repo (xorg-6.8.2-gcc4_fixes-1.patch) yet I used that one plus another patch in my recent build. Here's the other one: [...] Should this one be add

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Like I said in the original RFC, udev *will* still create nodes for *all* device it finds, regardless of the existence or otherwise of a rule in its configuration files. It just means that where a rule doesn't exist for the device, it will be give

Re: RFC - Cross-LFS Future

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: That seems to be the natural course to follow. I would like to see some of the goals/guiding principles of Cross-LFS layed out, too though. For example, how closely does it follow LFS and decisions made there, like package versio

Re: RFC - Cross-LFS Future

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, M.Canales.es wrote: If that will meant that Cross-LFS will be focused on pure cross-build techniques and scenarios, i.e. it assumes that host-triplet != target-triplet, thus no chroot way to build the final system, focusing the normal LFS book on host-triplet = target-trip

Re: gcc4 and glibc-2.3.x

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Andrew Benton wrote: For what it's worth I built my current LFS with current glibc cvs on Sunday and it doesn't seem unstable at all. I didn't need to patch glibc to build it with gcc-4.0.1. The glibc test suite had three fails, two of them were familiar maths test-doubl

Re: This is the end

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Thanks again - I've enjoyed it immensely. Thanks for all you've done, maybe we'll see you back one day. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom

Cross-LFS build order and running optional tests

I suspect Jim and Manuel will be none too pleased to hear that I'm running some "can it build itself" tests on Cross-LFS (inevitably, this means chrooting rather than cross-building on a different system, and I've noted the desire to drop chroot from Cross-LFS). At the moment some of my pack

Cross-LFS questions

Two questions: (i) Is there still a public rendering of this book ? I went to the website to check if I'd borked something in my editing but couldn't find any mention of Cross-LFS. Perhaps it's part of the restructuring. (/me suppresses a thought that editors on non-projects have a tendency

Re: Cross LFS Status

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: We are currently trying to stablize the Cross-LFS book. Any thoughts on a package freeze for existing packages, particularly glibc ? (That is, freeze versions unless it becomes clear that a different version will solve problems). I'm preparing to st

Re: Cross LFS

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: Manuel and LFS-dev, I have been thinking about this for a few days. Cross-LFS has two different options in it, boot and chroot. Boot is a complete reboot and chroot is like the standard LFS book. Talking with various people, an idea popped into my min

Re: Cross LFS

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, M.Canales.es wrote: If you are rendering/validating all book each time that you made a little change in the sources, yes, the process is very long. But if the change you made only affect some archs, you can validate/render only that books (for example, mips ands mips64) add

Re: gcc4 and glibc-2.3.x

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Andrew Benton wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: Well, the snapshot in cross-lfs is surprisingly good, but in general trying to follow glibc CVS is a full-time job for anybody who cares about more than just x86. I haven't built x86 on cross-lfs yet, but if the c++-types-

Re: My status

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Hello All, Hi Jeremy, I was pleased to see you back. I'm disappointed that not everyone viewed your useful contributions in the same way. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listin

Re: gcc4 and glibc-2.3.x

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Andrew Benton wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: Were you using glibc-20050926, or glibc-2.3-20050926 ? Oh, and did you definitely include the bash avoid_WCONTINUED patch ? I started with glibc-20050912 and I've been updating it with cvs every Sunday (I know how to have f

Cross-LFS findutils problem.

I've been trying to understand why the findutils testsuites were failing in Cross-LFS. The first problem (the xargs suite) could be fixed by adding a /bin/echo symlink (we were using /tools/bin/echo when the test ran, and the xargs tests were rewritten for 4.2.25 - if no action is specified f

Re: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I hadn't meant cut a branch from trunk and call it 'stable' - that would require a lot more testing. I meant take the current 'stable' book and do whatever minimally needs to be done to fix each bug and re-release. It really would be a 6.1.1 in that

Re: lib lib32 lib64 in LFS 7 x86_64_multilib

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, William Zhou wrote: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/cross-lfs/x86_64-64/ Hi, I finished this build several days ago and started BLFS. You've pointed people at the "pure64" version, which _only_ installs 64-bit : and for that, /lib is a walk in the park in BLFS

Re: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1

e standard directories are empty, e.g. in a chroot. Ken Submitted By: Date: 2005-10-14 Initial Package Version: 3.3.4 Upstream Status: From glibc-cvs Origin: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2005-02/msg5.html Applied by hand and rediffed by Ken Moffat. Description: Avoid s

Re: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: This one applied fine with an offset, built correctly and is running smoothly. Openssh-4.2p1 also built on the same system and running well. In that case, I'd rather go with yours (I think there is a possibility that my rejection was caused by

Re: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: 4) Do something with the udev configuration vs. /etc/group conflict reported in bug 1639. How about the udev version ? Should we stick with 056 or upgrade it to 070 ? (I seem to remember that something newer than 056 was needed for newer kernels

Re: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: 4) Do something with the udev configuration vs. /etc/group conflict reported in bug 1639. How about the udev version ? Should we stick with 056 or upgrade it to 070 ? (I seem to

Re: Cross-LFS: Diff for alpha and removed doubled patch

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Justin R. Knierim wrote: Attached is a patch to fix the alpha order of patches (mostly for mips). Removed a grep patch that was listed twice on the mips patches page. svn diff from /branches/cross-lfs/BOOK directory. Thanks, commited in r7032. Ken -- das eine Mal a

Re: kbd - sparc

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, jaca wrote: Hello I've obtained the following errorc while compiling Kbd-1.12 gcc -c -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -DDATADIR=\"/usr/share /kbd\" kbdrate.c kbdrate.c: In function 'KIOCSRATE_ioctl_ok': kbdrate.c:167: error: 'struct kbd_rate' has no memb

Cross-LFS multilib - perl

Hi, it appears to me that the perl installations in a multilib build are broken. First, in the temporary tools we end up with a /tools/bin/perl which thinks it is a 32-bit program because it uses the Config.pm from the 32-bit install in /tools/lib (spotted this when I tried doing without th

Re: Cross-LFS multilib - perl, glibc tests

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: For the temporary tools, I'm guessing we could just build a 32-bit perl (assuming any 64-bit testsuites will NOT produce perl modules). Progress update: Using the 20051017 glibc snapshot and ONLY a 32-bit perl in test-tools, the 64-bit

Re: Cross-LFS multilib - perl

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Ryan Oliver wrote: example patch for x86_64 lib64 attached (rename it to something appropriate) Thanks, I'll play with one of those later. Just thought I'd pipe up here... what use is there having both 32 and 64bit modules created if you are only going to be able to

Re: curious almost circular install

pOn Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Doug Ronne wrote: But now the cvs emacs requires texinfo, which I had been leaving off my temporary tools. So I guess I have to install texinfo to install emacs to install gettext but texinfo requires gettext! wee!!! Don't you lose the info pages from gcc if you d

Re: Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20051023-x86_64

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: Hi all, Just build the boot stages of Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20051023-x86_64 from a LFS 6.1 (32-bit) system. I've noticed a few small errors that I would like to report. 5.4. Build Variables Following the commands will set LFS_TARGET to i686-pc-linux-g

Re: Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20051023-x86_64

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: wouldn't it be better to say: echo "am_cv_func_working_getline=yes" > config.cache because if the configure has already been run then the cache file should be truncated. I've assumed that _some_ architectures already write to config.cache in these

Re: Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20051023-x86_64

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: 9.4. Expect-5.43.0 I think the configure line should be: CC="gcc ${BUILD64}" ./configure --prefix=/tools --with-tcl=/tools/lib \ --with-tclinclude=$TCLPATH --with-x=no because the

Re: [OT] Strace

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: I know this is off topic, so don't shout at me... I was trying to build strace-4.5.12 under x86_64 but it has compilation problems. Attached is a patch, taken from gentoo that fixes there. Regards, Duncan Blimey, it's a bit big, isn't it ;) I've g

Re: Attemping multilib Cross LFS from Mac OS X

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Hey Guys, Throwing this out there in case anyone has any ideas. I'm following the current Cross LFS instructions (generally) to attempt to build multilib on a PowerPC G5 running Mac OS X. (I added a patch for ppc multilib just now to the patches re

Re: [OT] Strace

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: My rule of thumb for Beyond-Cross-LFS, at the moment, is to mention issues on blfs-support. Are you thinking of a dedicated Cross-LFS mailing list? Not my call. But we are talking about strace which is a BLFS package (in the

Re: Perl - Cross-LFS Multilib

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: Translated for Cross-LFS would be. -Dlibpth="/usr/local/lib64 /lib64 /usr/lib64" \ -Dprivlib="/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.7" \ -Dsitelib="/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7" \ -Dvendorlib="/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.7" \ -Darchlib="/u

Re: Perl - Cross-LFS Multilib

(Adding Jim back to the CC) On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: Apart from that, this has two deficiencies in my view: (i) our 64-bit perl installs in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64, as do all subsequent modules (tested with XML-Parser, which finds libexpat from /usr/lib64, but installs

Re: Perl - Cross-LFS Multilib

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Thomas Pegg wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 21:35 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: OK, using Ryan's patch from last week plus the installstyle echo, with only a 64-bit perl, everything is in /usr/lib64/perl5 and XML-Parser installs into /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl. Looks

Re: Cross X86_64 Question /usr/lib64

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: I've a question arising from the build of xorg. xorg decided to install it's libraries and modules into /usr/lib64 On a pure64 system this directory is not created. Question is: 1) should a symlink from /usr/lib to /usr/lib64 be created in the section

Re: Cross X86_64 Question /usr/lib64

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: Question is: 1) should a symlink from /usr/lib to /usr/lib64 be created in the section Creating Directories in chapters 7 & 8 I agree that xorg is a BLFS support issue and that deals with case 2. Case 1 is a bit like /usr/man link to /usr/share/man,

Re: LFS 6.1.1 Release Date?

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Howdy. Have people been testing the 6.1.1 build? I built it[1], and my full desktop from the LFS-6.1 era, on my test machine (from an LFS svn host running gcc-4). That is, X-6.8.2, graphics libs and toolkits, gcc-3.3.5, firefox (forgot to upgrad

Re: LFS-Bootscripts-3.2.1 setclock

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Duncan Webb wrote: What I don't understand is why anybody would have a problem syncing the hardware clock to the system clock at reboot/power off. After all the system clock is synced to the hardware clock at boot. In that case, please search the lfs archives and warm

Re: Progress of the build order changes

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: > Are you just diffing the logs or are you actually doing binary diffs on the completed systems? At this point, just diffing the logs. I still have the binaries from each of the builds, so if we need to I can access any of them

Re: Progress of the build order changes

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Anyway, the results of the farce run are in my homedir: http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/farce-results A question for Ken, then. What's the difference between: 2 files differed as expected and 1 files differed as the

Re: Progress of the build order changes

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Chris Staub wrote: I just found a problem. I tried building arts and got this... Here's another uncleanness: e2fsprogs and libtool hardcode the path of sed into installed scripts. /usr/bin/mk_cmds (from e2fsprogs) and /usr/bin/libtool both have

Re: Progress of the build order changes

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: Heh, I was just about to revisit your earlier posting and ask about libtool. The difference in bison might be worrying, or it might be nothing (maybe even another candidate for "differs as they usually do") - anything interesting in farce-ext

Re: grub

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: Richard A Downing wrote: Is LILO still maintained? Your comments here worry me a lot about the competence of the team writing grub2. Looks like it is - http://home.san.rr.com/johninsd/pub/linux/lilo. The only adva

Re: TLS Fix for 6.1.1

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: DJ Lucas wrote: Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and verified only on 2.3.5. I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask som

Re: TLS Fix for 6.1.1

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Archaic wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems. It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug r

Re: User IDs and Group IDs

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: 1) Are those specific headers for that version necessary? Wouldn't the current ones work? Well, they work for me (I've been running 2.6.14 for a while now). However, I'd imagine that if the kernel gets a new feature (e.g. iN

coreutils tests as user dummy

I'm running into problems with the "src/su dummy -c "make RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes check" tests on a new architecture - it's telling me that user dummy doesn't exist with both 5.92 and 5.93, but 5.2.1 passes without errors. Looking at my notes and scripts, this is the first time I've tried e

Re: coreutils tests as user dummy

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: Yep, I ran into the same issue. Testing suggested that the /etc/passwd entry for users you want to `su' to need a home dir. I therefore changed the creation of the dummy user to: echo "dummy:x:1000:1000::/root:/bin/bash" >> /etc/passwd Have you

Re: OT: simplify CLFS [WAS: Re: User IDs and Group IDs]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: This is a bit off-topic, but this discussion has triggered another thought. With CLFS at some point (whether you decide to chroot or boot) you're going to be building the remainder of the book natively. At that point does CLFS really need to mainta

Re: More control...hint integration discussion

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Though I've never seen a situation where I 'ran into a problem during make install', I suppose it could happen. Just wait till you move to a multilib machine ;) Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratc

Re: Bzip2 binary

h using the non-shared version of bzip2. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce Submitted By: Ken Moffat Date: 2005-12-03 Initial Package Version: 1.0.3 Upstream Status: not submitted Origin: self Description: Copied from the non-shared Makefile so that the shared version can be

Re: Bzip2 binary

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, go moko wrote: After your remarks, I've done another test on my new 64 bits system. This time, I've quite exactly the same time for compressing and decompressing a 600Mo archive (OOo, for the example) with the shared and the partially-static version, with options -9 (maximum

Re: Alphabetical branch status report (LONG)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote: However, given that this is the Real World, I would be happy enough if someone could complete an ICA of the alphabetical branch. If it passes those tests then I'm in favour of merging it to trunk, as it would fix bug 684. If its impossible to get

Re: Alphabetical branch status report (LONG)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: I think Jeremy did use the initial release of farce in the early days of the alphabetical branch, despite its bugs. What improvements have you made? Fixed processing of ar archives that appeared to differ, another fix for

Re: Alphabetical branch status report (LONG)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Ken's Farce is probably good enough for our needs. However I did take a brief look at Greg's scripts and he does a couple of other interesting things, such as de-compressing all .gz files and un-archiving all .a files before running the comparison.

Re: Alphabetical branch status report (LONG)

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Ken's Farce is probably good enough for our needs. However I did take a brief look at Greg's scripts and he does a couple of other interesting things, such as de-compressing all .gz files and un-arc

Re: Alphabetical branch status report (LONG)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote: It sounds like Ken's scripts do a great job of doing the comparison. What I like about Greg's scripts is deciding what's being compared. 1. The build automatically loops to the beginning, skipping the first few stages: create symlinks, create devices,

Re: Alphabetical branch status report (LONG)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote: That's my prime objection to Greg's method - we always tell people fbbg, but the comparison takes a shortcut. Right, but for the purposes of testing, the environment should be as consistent as possible. That's standard procedure for running a test

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >