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, how does 'xmllint' puke? It'd be nice if the LFS Book's validation
Makefile target could catch t
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:45:24 -0700, Rob Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is my first post so I may be way late to the party, but I've found
> the following "bugs" in the unstable LFS tree(svn20081026):
>
> 2) 5.5. GCC-4.3.2 - Pass 1: There is no explanation for the compile
> option...
>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:50:35 -0500, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now all the tickets for packages and instructions have been fixed.
> Any
> new packages should be targeted to 7.0 from now on. If there is a strong
> security issue, we will address that, but normal updates should
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:50:05 -0600, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> #define RELEASE "stable"
>>> -#define VERSION "2.8"
>>> +#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS"
>>> [snip]
>>> Is there any interest in doing something like this ?
>>
>> I li
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:30:37 +0100, Jens Stroebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've spent a couple of ours now tryng to get jhalfs (svn trunk) to build
> the LFS svn version. But I can't get it done.
>
> - I've built by hand a couple of times already (at the time of 6.3 a
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:25:36 -0600, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any objections to me releasing 6.4 tomorrow (23 Nov)?
No objections here, Bruce. And I thought you'd suggest something like this so
I'm already building a trunk+package update build in preparation :-)
Regard
Hi all,
I'm trying to compile LFS trunk + local package update patches under a Windows
host, Kubuntu-8.10 guest Virtualbox environment using jhalfs trunk.
I see the following output in chapter 5's GCC build logs:
checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... none-
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:35:16 +0100, "Gilles Espinasse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just look in configure.log, you will see at wich line of configure the
> test
> is made.
> configure:1654: checking build system type
> configure:1672: result: athlon-pc-linux-gnu
> configure:1680: checking host s
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:53:37 +0100, Thomas Reitelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't take this as a reproach. I'm really not in the position to
> blame anyone because you're all doing such an importan "job"!
> But it would have been wise to fix this before the release. I'm of course
> no
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:16:49 -0800, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Because this was a consensus made by several people back in the early
>> part of 2006, I'd like to open it up for comment again now. Anyone mind
>> if we do the more technically correct thing
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:07:25 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anything else?
Ticket #2284 - radical plan would be to just drop udev-config completely, then
any reported issues should be passed upstream and fixed there. I really don't
see anything special about LFS that means
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:22:48 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. Ticket 2284, upgrade of Udev, and strip out udev-config. I doubt this
> needs its own branch. What sort of time/work is involved here?
I've already got the trivial patch that upgrades Udev, but doesn't strip out
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:39:07 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But as I'm working on this, I figured I'd pop in to grub2 headquarters
> and see what the status is. I know that historically, this community
> hasn't really been too fond of grub2 because of all the perceived
> atten
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:32:00 -0800, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> 4. Ticket 2284, upgrade of Udev, and strip out udev-config. I doubt
>> this needs its own branch. What sort of time/work is involved here?
>
> Not a ton of work; with a few hours of time, I can
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
> jhalfs to match what is now in Chapter 4 should take care of it. CCing
>
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:37:38 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 ne
Hi all,
I'm running a little behind schedule here, so thought I'd pass on the patch
series I'm currently building from on top of trunk. All the patches are at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~matthew/patches/ and the various updated
fixes-patches are there too, for those that don't want to pul
Hi all,
Regarding the following commit:
> Author: matthew
> Date: 2008-12-07 04:45:47 -0700 (Sun, 07 Dec 2008)
> New Revision: 8768
...
> Modified: trunk/BOOK/chapter07/network.xml
> ===
> --- trunk/BOOK/chapter07/network.xml 2008-1
Hi all,
Just wondering whether anyone has attempted to send our kbd backspace patch
upstream yet?
The header suggests we haven't, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.
Thanks,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:02:46 -0700, Gordon Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gordon Schumacher wrote:
>> cat >> ~/.bash_profile <<
>> "EOF"
>> make_package() {
>> tar cf $1.tar.bz2 $PKGTEMP
>> }
>> EOF
...
>> if [ "$(type -t make_package)" == "function" ]; then
>> make DESTDIR=$PKGTEMP
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:11:09 -0600, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not enough just to tar up the DESTDIR. You need to
> consider installing the package (which IMO should be done by a script
> created in the DESTDIR after removing any updated/dynamicly generated
> files). That way you
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:24:18 +, TheOldFellow wrote:
> Regarding the Essential Pre-Reading Hint. Although this has been here
> for years, it also hasn't been maintained or updated for years either.
> Isn't it about time that the link was removed?
>
> I got an email about it today, and had to
Hi all.
I'm running through an Xorg-7.4 build, but have hit a problem. Firstly, there's
a slight inconsistency:
The Xorg Apps page says that MesaGlut is recommended. But, visiting the MesaGlut
page suggests that FreeGlut is recommended, due to licensing issues with
MesaGlut.
Now, FreeGlut state
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:36:19 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> We are not a fork, never have been.
I think that's a matter of opinion, Jim. My opinion of CLFS is that it
has always has been a fork of LFS' code (at least in its infancy), but
not a fork of the project itself (the project being the cong
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:43:17 -0600, 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 th
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:14:14 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> We have a problem with libusb and usbutils.
>
> libusb has released 1.0.0 on 2008-12-13.
> usbutils is at version 0.73 released on 2007-10-24.
>
> 1. Just leave out usbutils for now.
> 2. Revert to the earlier version of libusb.
> 3. Tr
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:28:15 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> I've already said the CLFS Sysroot build is closest in spirit to how
>> sysroot is meant to work. But
>>
>> 1) it's cross compilation and therefore useless as a mainstream build
>> 2) it fails ICA verification dismal
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:19:22 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> I just want to see these test results and run the tests myself to see
> what this is all about. I don't use jhalfs, and neither does most of
> the people who work on CLFS.
>
> I can't take one individuals word on things, because frankly I
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:06:04 -0600, William Immendorf
wrote:
> I found out that there is a new GCC version, 4.3.3. This is a
> regression and docs fix release.
Typical, nearly through a fresh build here!
> The only problem is, its nowhere to be found on ftp.gnu.org.
It's probably just waitin
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:19:18 +0100, Thomas Trepl
wrote:
> That Moody was me. Well, you may have a look at a screenshot showing
> that error (http://equinox.homelinux.org/download/lfs-trac-broken-1.png). It
> also occur in Konqueror in which i first have deleted all the cookies,
> histories, cach
Hi all,
Just thought I'd drop a note on the pending package updates I've assigned to
myself. I have patches to the book for all of these now.
However, as expected by looking at ticket #2322, there's slight issues with
Groff-1.20.1 and its interaction with Man-DB-2.5.3.
I've put some screenshots
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:15:04 +0100, Thomas Trepl
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> just for whom may be interested:
Thanks. Just as an additional point, I see the same as you, apart from your
Perl failure, which I can't produce. If you've got time, I'd appreciate it if
you
could get some further debug log
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:15:04 +0100, Thomas Trepl
wrote:
>
> - Perl came up with one failure
> in ../lib/Archive/Extract/t/01_Archive-Extract.t
>
> ...
> ext/XS/APItest/t/xs_special_subs_require..ok
> ext/XS/APItest/t/xs_special_subs..ok
> ext/XS/Typ
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:40:25 -0800, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> Upstream seems to have mostly
> standardized on Debian's setup, where group "uucp" is used for a UUCP
> daemon, and group "dialout" is used for devices that users can use (for
> creating PPP-like connections).
>
> I propose changing the
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:46:34 +0200, Lefteris Dimitroulakis
wrote:
> Στις Sunday 01 February 2009 22:50:41 ο/η Matthew Burgess
> έγραψε:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just thought I'd drop a note on the pending package updates I've
> assigned to
>> myself. I ha
Hi all,
I get this in my latest build logs, when trying to compile inetutils-1.6
against readline.6.0:
mv -f .deps/ruserpass.Tpo .deps/ruserpass.Po
gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -o ftp cmds.o cmdtab.o domacro.o ftp.o main.o
ruserpass.o -L../libinetutils -linetutils -L../lib -lgnu -lreadline -lcurse
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 3:46:58 -0700, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I get this in my latest build logs, when trying to compile inetutils-1.6
> against readline.6.0:
>
> mv -f .deps/ruserpass.Tpo .deps/ruserpass.Po
> gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -o ftp cmds.o cmdtab.o d
Hi all,
"Notes on Building Software" in BLFS recommends, quite rightly,
that readers should do as little as possible as 'root', and only
use superuser privs for operations that require them (e.g.
'make install').
And, as this is *LFS I have chosen to ignore that advice up
until now and keep all t
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:05:41 -0600, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/28/09 19:33 CST:
>> While I'm not completely against putting pkg-config in LFS, we could
> also put it
>> into Chapter 3 of BLFS, 'After LFS Configuration Issues'.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if some
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:21:30 +0100, Tobias Gasser wrote:
> glibc 2.9 is NOT available at ftp.lfs-matrix.net as mentionned in ch03 /
> packages.html (dev. branch)
Thanks, Tobias. I've updated the book in r8843. I also took the
opportunity to use the smaller .tar.bz2 tarball which was recently
ma
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:58:35 +, Jack Stone wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This page seems to be causing a lot of confusion. Does anyone else think
> that the page could do with rewording and/or adding a big warning to the
> top of the page (eg "You must unpack the source and cd into the source
> dir an
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:24:05 -0600, Archaic
wrote:
> The LFS bootscripts use both [ and test, so these should be moved to
> /bin.
# type [
[ is a shell builtin
# type test
test is a shell builtin
> readlink is not used by LFS/BLFS bootscripts, but is moved to
> /bin. The FHS does not mention r
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:35:06 +0100 (MET), Alexander Kozlov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is no libidn/ in glibc-2.9 release, contrary to the contents
> of Chap.6. It appears in gnu snapshots though.
Could you be more specific please? I can't see any reference to libidn in
http://www.linuxfromscratch.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:46:16 +0100 (MET), Alexander Kozlov
wrote:
>>> there is no libidn/ in glibc-2.9 release, contrary to the
>>> contents of Chap.6. It appears in gnu snapshots though.
>>
>> Could you be more specific please? I can't see any reference to
>> libidn in
>>
> http://www.linuxfrom
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:30:25 -0500, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> Matt, the OP is right. In official releases, the Glibc tarball does not
> ship with libidn. But we've been using snapshots which *do* include it.
Of course, thanks for the reminder. I've got the glibc-libidn tarball
book patch queued
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:04:45 -0600, Archaic
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:55:15AM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>> # type [
>> [ is a shell builtin
>>
>> # type test
>> test is a shell builtin
>
> If this is true for all sh-compatible shel
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:58:45 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Matthew Burgess
> wrote:
>>
>> Given that LFS only installs bash, does any of this matter? :)
>
> A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility,
&
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:56:10 -0600, Trent Shea wrote:
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2344
>
> Hi,
>
>
> The error reported is reproducible using tar-1.21. However, the book has
> moved
> on to 1.22, which behaves as expected, as did 1.20.
Thanks, Trent. I've confirmed this on m
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:21:23 -0600, Archaic
wrote:
> +http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/";>
>
> I was hoping to use &kernel;, but that has /pub/ at the end. Oh well. :)
Thanks, Archaic. Committed in r8851.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http:
Hi all,
At http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~matthew/lfs_man_db_fix/chapter06/man-db.html
you can see the results of my attempt at fixing #2379
(http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2379).
I'd appreciate review of that page to check that it is accurate. The changes
from http://www.linuxfro
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:43:08 +0100, Ken Moffat
wrote:
> I was going to say "nice work" for the table, but checking it
> against src/encodings.c I note that Ukrainian should be KOI8-U not
> -R. Sorry to carp ;-)
Ken, thanks for the prompt feedback. If that's the only error in the encoding
tab
Hi all,
Following the recent procps release, I submitted our unicode patch upstream.
Here's the feedback I got:
> Do you happen to know if this causes troublefor people doing embedded stuff?
> They don't always use glibc.
So, does anyone have any experience of using non-Glibc systems, and if so
On Fri, 22 May 2009 13:02:44 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> As discussed at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2391, we've run
> into
> an issue with util-linux-ng. The best solution appears to hold off
> LFS-6.5
> until util-linux-ng-2.16 is released in 2 to 3 weeks. This change will
> al
On Mon, 25 May 2009 01:53:33 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> OK, I've got the problem solved. My errors are similar to the above, but
> the only errors I'm getting are tst-fgetwc.out and annexc.out.
Firstly, apologies for not noting the failures I saw when committing the
upgrade.
I get the same fa
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:32:48 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> #2398 Coreutils-7.4 fails 2 stty tests unassigned
>
> I could not duplicate this problem. I recommend closing, but Matt should
> do it.
Thanks, Bruce. Before I close this, I'd like a shout out from anyone using
either VirtualB
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:26:56 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:32:48 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>>
>> #2398Coreutils-7.4 fails 2 stty tests unassigned
>>
>> I could not duplicate this problem. I recommend closing, but Matt
>&
Hi all,
So, I'm trying to get Util-Linux-NG-2.15.1 to play nicely with e2fsprogs-1.41.6.
I'm taking the following approach:
1. Build pkg-config in chapter 5 (required for point 3)
2. Build util-linux-ng with --with-fsprobe=builtin and
'make -C libs/blkid install' to have it provide libblkid f
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:48:44 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> do we simply forget about Util-Linux-NG-2.15.1 and
>> wait for 2.16 instead, which includes a copy of libuuid?
>
> I think so, but I don't know what their release schedule look
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:53:32 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> Yep. pkg-config's search path is (I *believe*) only /usr/lib/pkgconfig
> by default, plus whatever's in $PKG_CONFIG_PATH.
Hmm, I did give that some (very limited) consideration, but came to the
conclusion that it wasn't worth looking i
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:33:17 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm guessing that we'll have to do a full build/install into tools, but I
> haven't checked it out yet.
If those programs just require libblkid and libuuid, then these can be
installed using:
make -C shlibs/blkid install
make -C shlibs/uu
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:33:17 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I was experimenting with Util-linux-ng-2.16-rc1 and we may need to fix up
> what we do in chapter 5.
Bruce, if it helps any, here's my latest work in progress patch for
Util-Linux-NG.
The only thing that will probably need fixing up is the
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:05:23 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> LFS Trac wrote:
>> #2428: E2fsprogs-1.41.7
>>
> --+-
>> Reporter: matt...@… | Owner: lfs-b...@…
>
>> Type: enhancem
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:55:50 +0100, Guy Dalziel
wrote:
> It seems that GCC no longer contains XCFLAGS in gcc/Makefile.in. Instead,
> there is a new function called T_CFLAGS in its place.
Thanks Guy.
I've always kind of glossed over the nitty gritty details of the toolchain build
method. Could s
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:10:20 +0200, "Gilles Espinasse" wrote:
> From: "Matthew Burgess"
>> Could someone point me to previous discussions on this please,
>> as I don't really feel comfortable in overriding upstream's decisions on how
>> to
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 06:52:49 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 08:55:50PM +0100, Guy Dalziel wrote:
>> I don't know how important the difference
>> between _most_ compiles and _all_ compiles is, but T_CFLAGS seems to
> work
>> just as well.
>
> The point of adding that flag
Hi Bruce,
Attached are my patches for all outstanding 6.5 tickets. It upgrades
Util-Linux-NG as far as 2.16-rc2. This has survived a build and boot
test. Feel free to commit them (in the order listed in 'series'), or
have me commit them if you're happy with them. Once done, we're just
waiting
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:48:04 -0500, William Immendorf
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> OK, I committed the changes. I was able to boot into this build and
> everything
>> seemed to work. Devices were recognized and the network was up.
> One more problem: In the CH6
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:43:00 -0500, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> I'd like to announce that Guy Dalziel has accepted a position as a BLFS
> Editor.
Many congrats Guy, welcome!
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See t
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:13:55 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> This is primarily to Bryan.
>
> Are there any issues or changes needed for the udev instructions that need
> to be
> made to incorporate udev-144 into the book?
>
> I do see that we don't need the last install command for the
> writing_ude
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:37:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> So now the question arises: Do we need util-linux-ng in Chapter 5?
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/kernfs.html
requires a '--bind' capable mount. So, we'd need mount from util-linux-ng
unless we add that as
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:06:43 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:37:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>>
>>> So now the question arises: Do we need util-linux-ng in Chapter 5?
>>
>>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:57:21 -0500, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So I don't have to try and scour through the archives, can someone help
> me figure out why GDBM was added to chapter 6 of the book, yet BDB was
> left in as well. Do we have packages in Chapter 6 that depend on both
> being
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:35:00 -0500, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/17/09 06:24 CST:
>
>> BDB was added ages ago when we moved to iproute2, whose arpd
> implementation links
>> against BDB. Personally, I never use arpd, but I guess i
Hi all,
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.2/00684.html mentions that
Linux-2.6.30.2 is due out pretty soon and includes fixes for some public
security issues (one of which is http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=6820).
As such, I think it's worthy of inclusion into LFS-6.5, an
Hi,
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS Version 6.5 Release Candidate 1. This release includes numerous
changes from LFS-6.4 (including updates to Linux-2.6.30.1, GCC-4.4.0,
Glibc-2.10.1) and security fixes. It also includes editorial work on the
explanatory
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:53:27 +0200, "Gilles Espinasse" wrote:
> It should be noted that one e2fsprogs test will fail because of lack of
> mkswap.
But Util-Linux-NG is installed before e2fsprogs in chapter 6, so `mkswap'
should be available.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailm
Hi,
On a newly built LFS-6.5-RC1 (with file-5.03 & Linux-2.6.30.2)
I see 3 instances of `/sbin/udevd --daemon' running at the same time.
Process 498, parent 1
Process 543, parent 498
Process 544, parent 498
Is this what 'NEWS' in the tarball refers to as 'worker'
processes, or are we not configu
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:48:29 +0200, Tobias Gasser wrote:
> the "changelog" is exactly the tool which serves my needs. i'll follow
> the wiki log for a while to see wether it will suit even better.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/news.html also has the commit
messages from SVN and is also ava
Hi,
As mentioned at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00411.html,
GCC-4.4.1 will be announced shortly.
There's a report that GCC-4.4.0 fails to compile at least 'dillo'
from BLFS [0], even though it obviously compiles LFS-6.5 without
issues, and GCC-4.4.1 contains the fix for this bug.
As suc
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:51:21 +0200, Josua Mayer wrote:
> Christopher Worley schrieb:
>> Now available for download.
>> Has anyone tried to use this yet?
>>
>>
> I have tried compiling gcc-4.4.1 on my lfs-SVN-20090606 system using the
> commands for gcc-4.4.0 and it doesn't compile properly for me.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:41:28 +0100, Guy Dalziel
wrote:
> Gawk 3.1.7 was released yesterday. I think we should include this in
> 6.5 as it removes the need for ac_cv_func_working_mktime. Grep'ing the
> configure output shows "checking for working mktime... yes" with the use
> of './configure --pre
Hi,
I've just targetted all the pending package updates for LFS-6.5.
I think the arguments for Gawk's inclusion were strong enough, i.e.
we don't see an update very often, so we should get its fixes as
they're out there now. The Man-Pages update is trivial enough,
leaving just Psmisc & Shadow.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:22:29 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> I've just targetted all the pending package updates for LFS-6.5.
All package updates are now in, and the 6.5 branch is in package freeze mode.
RC2 is
nearly here, but before I cut it I'd like to get #2462 (comman
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:20:32 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't understand the change.
>
> Unpack the Binutils
> sources and run the script: ./config.guess and
> note
> the output. For example, for a modern 32-bit Intel processor the
> old - output will likely be
> i686-pc-linux-gnu.
>
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:29:31 -0800, Rabbit wrote:
> but I think we should use just only use i686-pc-linux-gnu
> because I think it doesn't make sense to use i686-pc-lfs-gnu.
The 'i686-lfs-linux-gnu' came in through the move across to DIY's build
method [0]. This is described at [1]:
"It is vit
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:24:34 -0800, ALIP BUDIANTO wrote:
> Ok, I see that we have to do *i686-pc-lfs-gnu and it kind off seemed
> kind of useless, but can LFS build without **i686-pc-lfs-gnu?*
As Guy Dalziel mentions at [0], not changing the vendor field in the target
triplet is likely to break
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:10:30 + (UTC), Greg Schafer
wrote:
> Yeah, sorry. Somewhat out of the loop lately (but still reading the
> lists). I intend getting back up to speed before too long. Matt is
> correct in that this aspect of the pass 1 cross toolchain is pivotal. ie:
> not to be messed
Hi,
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS Version 6.5 Release Candidate 2. This release includes numerous
changes from LFS-6.4 (including updates to Linux-2.6.30.2, GCC-4.4.1,
and Glibc-2.10.1) and security fixes. It also includes editorial work on
the explanat
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:03:55 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
> LFS Version 6.5 Release Candidate 2.
Many thanks to those who helped out with the last few bugs from RC1!
The 6.5 branch is now closed for all but expla
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:59:32 -0800, ALIP BUDIANTO wrote:
> Theres a bug in LFS RC in GCC-4.4.1 - Pass 2 that breaks it and
> probably the other tools because GCC is missing a patch and probably
> others missing patches also.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. What patch is missing? Is
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:59:31 +0100, Jeremy Henty
wrote:
>
> Yes, it's a mega-nitpick, but while this works fine:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/6.5-rc1/
>
> this does not (page not found):
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/6.5-rc2/
>
> It doesn't seem ri
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:44:48 +0100, Jeremy Henty
wrote:
>
> Same problem as for the initial release of -rc1: the lfs-bootscripts
> and udev-config packages are not in the download directory. This
> probably means that their download links in chapter 5 will break.
I think this is a bug i
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 2:29:02 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:44:48 +0100, Jeremy Henty
> wrote:
>>
>> Same problem as for the initial release of -rc1: the lfs-bootscripts
>> and udev-config packages are not in the download directory. Thi
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:41:39 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Sinve tar-1.21, there are spurious messages when extracting like:
>
> Record size = 8 blocks
>
> There is a fix for this in the git repository. Should we apply this or
> just wait for the next release of tar?
I'd suggest we just wait for
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:20:15 -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
> Bruce over in CLFS we have a patch that add's the current man-page
> without the tools.
> http://svn.cross-lfs.org/svn/repos/cross-lfs/trunk/patches/tar-1.22-man_page-1.patch
Hi Jim, that patch looks good to me. Have you tried submitting
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:15:46 +0200, Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Tobias Gasser schrieb:
>> the following sefaults (i've rebuild the book on a second machine with
>> the same result!)
>
> meanwhile my second machine has rebuild from scratch and reached the
> perl script.
>
> the last builds i omitted t
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:25:35 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> What does 'strings /usr/lib/zlib.so | grep -i zlibVersion' output for you?
'nm -g /usr/lib/libz.so | grep zlibVersion' is probably the more proper command
to use,
although they should both output the same t
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:36:54 +0200, Tobias Gasser wrote:
> i already rebuild it, nevertheless perl tests fail.
OK, the only other thing I can suggest at this point is to take a backup
copy of ext/Compress/Raw/Zlib/config.in before the sed then do a diff on
the before and after copies. The synta
Hi,
Following a thread on blfs-support[0], it looks like the i18n
patch for Coreutils causes a problem during compilation of
Dash in BLFS. The attached builtins file produces the following
output when we compile Coreutils with the i18n patch:
$ LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
$ sort -u -k 3,3 builtins
0
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:13:38 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Matthew
> Burgess wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following a thread on blfs-support[0], it looks like the i18n
>> patch for Coreutils causes a problem during compilation of
>>
1 - 100 of 1170 matches
Mail list logo
