On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 19:28:26 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> sed -i -e '/^_PKG_TEXT/s/dnl/[]dnl/' \
>-e '/^To get/s/dnl/[]dnl/' pkg.m4
>
> will do it, for those who dislike patching. The simple "change
> '])dnl'" version I tried also changed other lines.
It turns out that this was actually a
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:30:46 +0100, Ken Moffat
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 02:56:08PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 19:28:26 +0100, Ken Moffat
> wrote:
>>
>> > sed -i -e '/^_PKG_TEXT/s/dnl/[]dnl/' \
>> >-e '
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:38:27 -0400, Drew Ames wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's an interesting security update from Slackware that gives some
> information on a recent vulnerability exposed in Glibc:
>
> glibc-2.11.1-i486-4_slack13.1.txz: Rebuilt.
>
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 9:59:25 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:38:27 -0400, Drew Ames wrote:
>
>> 1) Is it worth downloading and using the development version of Glibc
>> from git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git to build LFS with the updated
>> source?
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:25:26 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> You can make your own simple library like this:
>
> cat #include
> #include
> #include
>
> void __attribute__((constructor)) init() {
> mkdir(getenv("EXPLOIT_TGT"), 0755);
> }
> EOF
> gcc -fPIC -shared -o /tmp/libbad.so.0
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:32:48 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> It'll be a while until I run another full build, but I'm recompiling glibc
> now, with the patch I uploaded earlier. I'll post results tomorrow, but
> expect it to work just fine.
Well, it didn't appear
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:48:39 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> Ah, I think I see. You have to put libbad.so into /lib64 (emulating
>> libpcprofile), then set LD_AUDIT to just "libbad.so.0", with no path.
>> At that point it works as expected (at least for me). (Though this i
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:13:09 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> Well, if I had any other users on this system, I'd think about patching
> 2.10.1 and trying it out -- but since I don't, I'll probably just wait
> until the next full system rebuild. (Replacing glibc on a running
> system is ... nontriv
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:17:48 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> That should have worked. Did you try a reboot before testing to clear
> cache?
Yes, I rebooted. Thanks for confirming in your other mail that the patch
doesn't have the desired effect. I guess we'll have to wait and see what
happens on the
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:51:48 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 12:26 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>>
>> Additional part. Haven't tested.
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-hacker/2010-10/msg00010.html
>>
>> Makes LD_AUDIT behave same as LD_PRELOAD.
>>
>> Will rebuild glibc in a few moments on thi
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:59:34 -0500, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> is not located where the dev book says it is:
> http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-164-testfiles.tar.bz2
>
> Would it be any different than the 163 version?
Only the directory it extracts to is different. I've uploa
Hi all,
Please see message below that was sent to me privately.
I don't remember being the original developer of the Perl patch,
so can't immediately explain why the line mentioned isn't changed
and/or why things work without it being changed. Anyone else?
Thanks,
Matt.
Original Mess
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:42:10 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Also, the update to expect broke jhalfs.
I fixed that in http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs/changeset/3534
shortly after I committed the expect upgrade to LFS. Doing an 'svn up'
should get you going again.
As for your coreutils issue, I
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:47:41 -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Can somebody else on a mult-core CPU, on 32-bit, confirm before I
> troubleshoot further?
This is also being tracked upstream and at RedHat:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2010-11/msg00083.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:45:01 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Should we revert to .6 until this is fixed?
That's probably the safest/easiest option. Do you mind taking care of it,
or do you want me to?
Thanks,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfro
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:09:30 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been pretty busy with a work project. I'd appreciate it if you can
> do it.
No probs, done in r9421. Thanks, DJ, for the report.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscra
Hi all,
Just a heads up that a new kernel vulnerability has been discovered
and reported at http://lwn.net/Articles/419141/.
Note that it currently relies on the ECONET module (under
Networking Support -> Networking Options -> Acorn ECONET/AUN
protocols) to be loaded in order to be exploited.
A
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:30:56 -0600, William Immendorf
wrote:
> 6.33 Perl 5.12.2. In the description for libnetcfg, it says:
>
> "Can be used to configure the libnet"
>
> which doesn’t really make sense. A better description would be:
>
> "Can be used to configure the libnet Perl module"
>
> w
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:32:34 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> In any case, should we change the book to update the glibc kernel option
> to 2.6.30? I don't know if a similar change to the host system
> prerequisites is also needed or not.
I think we'd be wise to update the host system prerequisite
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:13:21 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:32:34 -0600, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, should we change the book to update the glibc kernel
> option
>>> to 2.6.30? I don't
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:48:09 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> OK, so do we use 2.6.30.2 (LFS-6.5)? Do we need to update any other
> packages in the requirements or make everything from LFS-6.5 (Aug 2009)?
> Right now, the minimum requirements are from LFS-6.3 (Aug 2007).
If we set it to 2.6.30 (t
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:22:24 +0100, hauradou wrote:
> what about changing that glibc configure line into something like:
> enable-kernel=`uname -r | awk -F. '{ print $1"."$2"."$3 }'`
> So that any of these versions could be convenient ?
It would be easier to just use '--enable-kernel=current',
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:52:56 -0800, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:48:09 -0600, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so do we use 2.6.30.2 (LFS-6.5)? Do we need to update any other
>>> packages in the requirements
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:02:07 +0800, xinglp wrote:
> in Changelog
> Change password hashing from MD5 to SHA-512.
>
> but in chapter06/shadow.html
> Instead of using the default crypt method, use the more secure MD5
> method of password encryption
Thanks for the report, I'll fix that up this eveni
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:06:39 -0800, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's the best setup; we'll have to make sure at each
> glibc release (until the bug is fixed) that no new private-futex tests
> are added. (That the sed is still equivalent to the patch.) It'd be
> nice if the sed cou
Hi,
While testing out a build with Glibc-2.13, the test-installation.pl script
outputs the following:
/tools/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.5.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
cannot find -lnss_test1
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Execution of gcc failed!
Now, this is because libnss_tes
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:02:07 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> On my most recent automated build, I have errors in four packages.
> automake
>aclocal5.test
I don't think I've ever seen this one. However, I also see an
intermittent in Make's testsuite (SECONDARY) - it seems to
always fail the fir
Hi all,
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS Version 6.8-rc1. This is the first release candidate on the road to
LFS-6.8. It includes numerous changes to LFS-6.7 (including updates to
Linux-2.6.37, GCC-4.5.2, Glibc-2.13 and security fixes). It also includes
e
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:59:49 +, akhiezer wrote:
> - i.e. change from 'script reads' to 'scripts read' ?
Thanks, fixed in r9472.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:51:41 -0500, "Mario J. Lia"
wrote:
> Heyo!
>
> I just noticed on the website in the LFS News section, it says
> February 26th for the most recent post about LFS Version 6.8-rc1.
> Either that is a typo, or time traveling is part of the new LFS build.
Ah, good spot :-)
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:12:17 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The url in the book is wrong:
>
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/boost/boost_1_45.tar.bz2 should be
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/boost/boost_1_45_0.tar.bz2
>
> I fixed that. The bigger problem IMO, is the description:
>
> "Boost
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:40:58 -0600, Andy Prough wrote:
> Hi,
> p. 56 of the PDF version:
> cp -rv dest/include/* /tools/include
>
> should be:
> cp -rv dest/include/* tools/include
Why do you think that? Here, we're installing the Linux API headers under
the /tools/include directory s
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:41:26 +0800, xinglp wrote:
> The pkgs below work well on my lfs system, both i386 and x86_64.
> linux-2.6.37.3
> tar-1.26
> ncurses-5.8
I'm have patches I intend to apply for these when my next build
finished tomorrow.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailm
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 23:39:04 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Okay, so I was just thinking...
> help us! I figure we have at least 6 months, potentially a year until
> the next major LFS release, and now seems like a pretty good time to
> explore some of the ideas that have been shelved for previous rele
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:18:18 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Hello World,
> I see that gcc-4.6.0 is out. I tried to use it but the build fails at
> the first pass in libquadmath with an error about GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
> So I added --disable-libquadmath to the configure line but it didn't
> help. It
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:36:36 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:18:18 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>> Hello World,
>> I see that gcc-4.6.0 is out. I tried to use it but the build fails at
>> the first pass in libquadmath with an error about GCC_NO_EXECU
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:18:18 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Hello World,
> I see that gcc-4.6.0 is out. I tried to use it but the build fails at
> the first pass in libquadmath with an error about GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
> So I added --disable-libquadmath to the configure line but it didn't
> help. It
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:29:48 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2011, at 6:14 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> From my viewpoint (minimalist, extra packages which aren't
>> mandatory need to be justified), the lack of applications (that I
>> know of, maybe there is now something) which detect a
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:31:03 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The md5sum and size of the link in the book are quite different:
Hi Bruce,
I think you meant this to go to blfs-dev?
Thanks,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubs
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:32:38 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 05:01:21PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> The purpose of this is to move a lot of things (.udev, etc) out of /dev
>> and eventually will end up holding files presently on /var/run and
>> /var/lock.
>>
>> Though
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:56:42 -0600 (MDT), matt...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
> Log:
> Upgrade to Coreutils-8.11. Fixes #2858.
Note that I'm currently trying to figure out what broke 2 tests with this
upgrade. misc/help-version and misc/invalid-opt are failing for me due to
the list of built pro
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:22:24 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:56:42 -0600 (MDT), matt...@linuxfromscratch.org
> wrote:
>
>> Log:
>> Upgrade to Coreutils-8.11. Fixes #2858.
>
> Note that I'm currently trying to figure out what broke 2 tests
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:44:07 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 04/18/2011 07:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:56:42 -0600 (MDT), matt...@linuxfromscratch.org
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Log:
>>>> Upgrade to Co
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:26:54 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the reports guys. Would you mind running the following
> script
>> for me please and let me know what you get? On my builds, all 10 of the
>> no-patch builds produce t
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:32:59 +0200, Sebastian Plotz
wrote:
> Just a question: Is the Glibc GCC Build Fix Patch still required for GCC
> 4.6.0? I have to say that I didn't test anything.
Yes, it was still required on my 32-bit build. I tested without it and got the
usual failure, using the patch
On Tue, 10 May 2011 10:47:34 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>Can we do something more explicit about versioning?
>
> Need Bruce or Matt to chime in here, but I don't see that it's a big deal
> to something about a more common versioning scheme.
I don't mind changing the ver
On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:16:22 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Alright, with last commit to lsb-bootscripts, I think we are ready to
> go. Bruce, Matt, you guys get a chance to review the patch?
Hi DJ, apologies for the delay, but I've now managed to review your patch.
Firstly, thanks for taking the tim
On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:25:15 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>>make-aux-files.sh: Why renaming things to lsb-bootscripts? If we're
>>migrating (which I think we should), shouldn't we just move the lsb
>>scripts out of contrib and then continu
On Mon, 23 May 2011 11:25:25 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-170-testfiles.tar.bz2
> is missing. Do you want me to install those?
Nope, I'll upload them soon - upstream made a minor change this time around.
Thanks,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromsc
Hi all,
The following is taken from my build logs when using Glibc-2.13:
checking cpuid.h usability... no
checking cpuid.h presence... yes
configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: present but cannot be compiled
configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
configure: WARNING: cpuid
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:52:46 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> The problem is autoconf. By default the AC_CHECK_HEADER macro uses a
> set of prerequisite headers that's supposed to cover most of the common
> stuff on a system -- but that list is set up for full systems, not
> bootstrapping like we'
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:59:19 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:55:21 -0600
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> I guess the first question is, has anyone else seen this issue?
>
> No, I don't get that. It could be because I've been using eglibc for
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:14:59 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 03:07 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>> I'd prefer for us not to use HJL's binutils
>>
> Then don't. That patch doesn't look all that invasive..no need to add
> tests for local build
On 26/06/2011 20:09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I have found that if I change this to
>
> 1. sh Configure -des -Dprefix=/tools
> 2. make
> 3. cp -v perl cpan/podlators/pod2man /tools/bin
> 4. mkdir -pv /tools/lib/perl5/5.14.1
> 5. cp -Rv lib/* /tools/lib/perl5/5.14.1
>
> then all packages in the book bu
On 27/06/2011 02:34, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I also see a change in
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/browser/trunk/perl/perl-5.10.1-libc-1.patch
> by Matt.
>
> I'll be glad to change this if it was an inadvertent change, but I'd
> like to confirm that first.
>
> Matt?
That definitely looks
On 26/06/2011 22:58, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On 26/06/2011 20:09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> I have found that if I change this to
>>>
>>> 1. sh Configure -des -Dprefix=/tools
>>> 2. make
>>> 3. cp -v perl cpan/po
On 20/07/2011 08:12, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I didn't get a chance to install yet, but did a quick walk through
I've done it the other way around. I've installed them, but not done a
walk through yet. It installs and boots the latest LFS-trunk without
issues. I'll see if I can get a walkthrough do
On 02/08/2011 21:07, xinglp wrote:
> 2011/8/2 Bruce Dubbs:
>> I have made a very large, invasive change to LFS. All the bootscripts
>> have been rewritten.
>>
>> From the change log:
>>
>> [bdubbs] - Rewrite bootscripts and Chaper 7.
>> o Make scripts compatible with initd format (see BLFS).
>>
On 02/08/2011 22:16, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I could ask that the util-linux guys omit /run also.
>
> Alternatively, we could do something like:
>
> [ -d /run/var ] || return
>
> in the appropriate places in functions so the attempt to write is
> skipped if the /run/var directory is missing.
>
>
On 03/08/2011 05:23, Lemon Lime wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I have just installed systemd on my LFS-based system, and I would like
> to share my experience. Is there anyone here who is interested in
> installation instructions, boot time measurements, configuration options
> and other information on t
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:20:29 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> checking whether to use .ctors/.dtors header and trailer... configure:
> error: missing __attribute__ ((constructor)) support??
Looks like that was caused by this change (apologies if the link
wraps awkwardly!).
http://sourceware.org/git
On 03/08/2011 18:20, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 9:19:40 -0600
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:20:29 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>
>>> checking whether to use .ctors/.dtors header and trailer... configure:
>>> err
On 03/08/2011 18:20, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 9:19:40 -0600
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:20:29 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>>
>>> checking whether to use .ctors/.dtors header and trailer... configure:
>>> err
Hi all,
With the upgrade to Udev-173, we now see a warning that the call to
'udevadm trigger --type=failed --action=add' from S10udev is deprecated.
The thread starting at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg05039.html goes into more detail
about the issues involved, but in effect, Udev'
Hi all,
With the upgrade to Udev-173, we now see a warning that the call to
'udevadm trigger --type=failed --action=add' from S10udev is deprecated.
The thread starting at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg05039.html goes into more detail
about the issues involved, but in effect, Udev'
On 05/08/2011 03:41, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> But that raises the question of what that bootscript was trying to do
>> in the first place? So, it turns out that the actions specified by
>> 'RUN+=' udev rules can fail for any of a variety of
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 01:06:52 -0700, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Matthew Burgess <
> matt...@linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>
>> On 05/08/2011 03:41, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> >> But that raises the ques
On 05/08/2011 19:55, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've thought for a while that there should be a location that is
> accessible across boots that is always available (not a mountpoint).
> It's a catch-22 though. How do you mount / read only (for security) and
> still be able to write this persistent data
On 05/08/2011 19:55, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've thought for a while that there should be a location that is
> accessible across boots that is always available (not a mountpoint).
> It's a catch-22 though. How do you mount / read only (for security) and
> still be able to write this persistent data
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:10:05 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> The patch attached to that bug applies cleanly and fixes the problem,
> Firefox no longer crashes. As this is a bug in glibc-2.14 (glibc-2.13
> works fine and does not need patching) I think we should add this to
> the book or people will
On 18/08/2011 16:44, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> If you look at the links there, they are correctly ending before the
> trailing punctuation. However, in the generated mail (at least in the
> mailman archives), the punctuation has been included in the URL. One
> of the admins would have to hunt that do
On 31/08/2011 18:51, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've noticed that there is a spurious file, /t, created in the latest
> builds of LFS. The file is 2 bytes long, a 0xff followed by a newline.
>
> It is a file generated by one of the tests in grep. I'm not sure how to
> find which test. It appears to be
On 31/08/2011 19:51, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Commenting out the line 'cp $in /t' does not seem to affect the test.
> The question now is whether to do
>
> sed -i 's:\(cp $in /t\):#\1:' tests/unibyte-bracket-expr
>
> Or just delete the /t file that's created.
I'd prefer to prevent the file from being
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:59:40 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> According to the home page, we should be applying the upstream patches
> found here:
> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.0.1/allpatches
>
> See bugs section at: http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.0.1/
Thanks DJ, this is now ticket #2918.
Regards,
Matt.
-
On 03/09/2011 16:52, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> You modify the expected return value of a test for pkg-config and in
>> doing so, I think you may be invalidating the test.
>
> Matt did that about 3 months ago.
Yeah, so I did...sometimes 'svn annotate' sucks :)
>> I have not ye
On 03/09/2011 22:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> Confirmed here with popt-1.16. It seems odd that pkg-config
>>> bundles a version of popt known to be broken, and requires a
>>> confi
On 09/09/2011 19:11, Walter Webb wrote:
> I don't know if it's my own problem or a general one, but the directory
> /usr/include/rpc contains one file; netdb.h. /tools/include/rpc also has
> the one file. I discovered this when trying to install portmap in a
> completed system.
Yes, this has bee
On 09/09/2011 22:30, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> "git.kernel.org could not be found. Please check the name and try again."
Several kernel.org servers were compromised recently and have been taken
offline for investigation. The main website, ftp site and git repos are
certainly affected by this.
Rega
On 12/09/2011 20:40, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matt,
> I saw your conversation with Kay Sievers at
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17011
>
> How do we want to address this? I'm not sure that the advice to ignore
> the clock setting and always use ntp is the best approach. It
On 11/09/2011 19:40, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> This period of time where we discuss migrations would be a good time for
> us to discuss any wholesome changes we might like to implement. We can
> start off with a new server and a clean slate instead of blindly
> replicating the current setup and m
On 12/09/2011 00:21, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09:15AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> Maybe, moving to git instead of svn ? Git is a bitch to become
>> comfortable with [ I dropped out of clfs when they moved to it ] but
>> it does make branching easy. Perhaps that isn't an is
On 12/09/2011 00:23, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Speaking of mailing lists. I wasn't going to bring it up yet but I have
> toyed with the idea for several years now of moving away from the idea
> of email based mailing lists and moving to a forum based system. Before
> all us old timers (myself inclu
On 15/09/2011 20:38, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> There are options about what to do right now:
>
> 1. Leave in the warning message and optionally write something about it
> in the book.
We try, generally, to accomodate changes in upstream programs. I'll
defer to upstream's views on the fact that bl
On 15/09/2011 20:38, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> There are options about what to do right now:
>
> 1. Leave in the warning message and optionally write something about it
> in the book.
We try, generally, to accomodate changes in upstream programs. I'll
defer to upstream's views on the fact that bl
On 16/09/2011 19:09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:46:08 +0100
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> So, based on the above, 5 is definitely something to look into I think.
>>>If that doesn't pan out, th
On 27/09/2011 18:09, Andrew Benton wrote:
> It seems that glib-2.30.0 requires libffi and python.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm not actually that bothered by those 2
dependencies. libffi has no dependencies itself, and Python has no
mandatory dependencies, so it's only 2 packages that need to
On 27/09/2011 19:08, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Yes, we're getting bloat inserted by upstream:
Looking at the ChangeLog, the root dependency is "Add Pkg-Config as it's
a pre-requisite of E2fsprogs' new configure switches." However, that
ChangeLog entry is within a whole bunch of Util-Linux changes,
On 27/09/2011 20:24, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On 27/09/2011 19:08, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Yes, we're getting bloat inserted by upstream:
>
> Looking at the ChangeLog, the root dependency is "Add Pkg-Config as it's
> a pre-requisite of E2fsprogs' new config
On 27/09/2011 22:35, Ken Moffat wrote:
> With respect, Matt, it's the glib2 part that is bloat. I remember
> some discussion, but I forget why we did it
pkg-config upstream, as of 0.26, removed the internal Glib-1 that it
used to bundle, therefore forcing us to install a system-wide copy and
a
Hi,
For a while now, I've had 2 test failures in coreutils, but have just
ignored them. With the latest version I saw a 3rd failure, which made
me relook at Coreutils' test suite. The failures I see are:
misc/help-version
misc/invalid-opt
rm/many-dir-entries-vs-OOM
The 1st 2 tests pass if I
On 30/09/2011 00:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For a while now, I've had 2 test failures in coreutils, but have just
>> ignored them. With the latest version I saw a 3rd failure, which made
>> me relook at Coreutils' test
On 30/09/2011 00:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The help-version test is doing:
>
> for i in $built_programs; do
> v=$(env $i --version | sed -n '1s/.* //p;q')
> break
> done
>
> And failing with 'env: cd: No such file or directory'
>
> $built_programs is returning:
>
> cd ..&& /bin/sh ./config
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:45:13 -0700, Bryan Kadzban
wrote:
> See the attached patch for what I propose we do, at least in the short
> term, or possibly longer as well.
>
> It changes udev_retry to (in addition to using --type=failed) read
> /etc/sysconfig/udev_retry (name TBD, but this works for m
On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:53:52 -0400, John Stanley
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be an easy way to turn off the
> libffi requirement, which is unfortunate, as libglib itself
> doesn't need it. On the other hand, I've been building
> lfs/blfs-like systems for several years now, and end up
> ins
On 05/10/2011 22:48, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
That sounds like a nice simple approach. Does it still place its .pc
files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig?
Hi Bruce,
Here's the complete patch I've kicked off a test build with. Your
machine may just beat mine though, if you want to verify it :-)
Regards,
On 05/10/2011 23:24, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 22:48, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> That sounds like a nice simple approach. Does it still place its .pc
>> files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig?
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Here's the complete patch I've kicked off a
On 08/10/2011 16:33, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Right. I'll fix that today.
>
> -- Bruce
>
Thanks for that, Bruce. My working copy had that in (it had to have
done, otherwise my jhalfs based build would have failed), but somehow it
got lost. It must have just been a quilt-related screw up on my
On 16/10/2011 19:50, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Is there a problem with the LFS server ? I'm getting mail from the
> lists, but I can't connect to linuxfromscratch.org using a browser
> (times out), and if I try 'svn up' the remote connection is reported
> as getting closed. And ssh appears not to wor
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:48:17 +0200, feralert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As I am new in LFS and this is my first attempt, I have a couple of
> comments that might help make the book easier to follow (at least to a
> non-english newbie like me).
Firstly, welcome!
> - While going through the book the re
On 25/10/2011 19:06, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Reference http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2937
>
> 3.0.8 or 3.1? Changing the kernel is not particularly hard, but we need
> to go ahead and publish 7.0. -rc2 has been out for 2 weeks and there
> have only been minor changes. We need to keep
201 - 300 of 1170 matches
Mail list logo
