Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/31/08 10:19 CST:
> Looks interesting. Where do you put your DESTDIR? Is it a part of the
> chroot partition? You said you use scripts. Can you post a typical script?
I suppose I should qualify "scripts". Actually, there is only one main
script I use to copy
Sukucorp Sukucorp wrote these words on 03/31/08 16:40 CST:
> On undefined, Dave Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree w/ pretty much everything said below and would also like to
>> see a DESTDIR-branch. I'd add the uninstall commands should also be
>> broken out into pre- and post- stage
Hi all,
I noticed that a new patch was put in the repo for Berkeley-DB that
is nothing more than an upstream patch, verbatim.
Why the conversion? Why the adding to our repo?
Upstream is notorious for changing the patch content but not changing
the name. And we don't see changes. This can only be
Sukucorp Sukucorp wrote these words on 04/11/08 15:52 CST:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was responding to some earlier comments about sh->dash causing problmes.
>> I
>> added the part about yacc and awk because I know thy are sometimes used,
>>
Dennis Clarke wrote these words on 04/18/08 13:11 CST:
> I have taken a run at this twice and am not entirely sure if the situation
> is acceptable or not.
I cannot answer that either. You've received more errors than I
have while building in several different environments.
> Should I be worried
Dennis Clarke wrote these words on 04/19/08 17:29 CST:
> If anyone has words of encouragement .. now would be a good time :-)
6 errors out of 42,000 tests ain't sh*t. Drive on, brother. Boot it
up and see what happens. :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC)
Dennis Clarke wrote these words on 04/19/08 17:44 CST:
> Should I be yelling "yeehaw" and waving a cowboy hat at the same time?
Hellyeah!
Hmm, I'm from Texas and Dennis says "yeehaw and waving a cowboy hat".
He knew that already, right???
Anyway, I hang out at my brother's place and we play po
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/22/08 15:42 CST:
> Can anyone confirm if the comment after the 'make check' command in
> chapter 6 grep is still valid? I'm currently doing a build on x86_64 and
> my results were:
>
> ==
> All 13 tests passed
> (1 tests were not run)
>
Cc: to BLFS-Dev
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 03/31/08 10:44 CST:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> The implication of going to DESTDIR for LFS would imply doing the same
>> for BLFS. Some of the BLFS packages are not DESTDIR friendly. I can't
>> remember which ones off the top of my hea
Cc: LFS-Dev
Randy McMurchy wrote these words (many snipped) on 04/27/08 18:33 CST:
> I just installed a Perl Module and not only was it native DESTDIR
> friendly and multilib friendly, it installed files depending on the
> native arch of the machine.
>
> Simply using the USE_ARC
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/30/08 01:11 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Hopefully, everything will be simply commented out. I'd like to
>> leave any unused, but still in the book, text to remain there until
>> we cut this release. That way the source is a bit more pr
Marc McLaughlin (LUSYN) wrote these words on 05/12/08 06:39 CST:
> Out of interest, which bootloaders mentioned by Jeremy for LFS 7.0 will
> work with x86-64? I only managed to get my x86-64 LFS build booting
> with EXTLINUX.
I really don't have a good answer to your question, as I'm guessing
yo
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/12/08 09:28 CST:
> I suppose, at some point, we might want to be able to do multilib. But,
> at least when I started the branch, it was felt that we'd be better off
> just approaching a 64-bit only build. Whenever we do feel like adding
> multilib, build not
The BLFS Development team is pleased to announce the release of the
6.3-rc1 version of BLFS. This is a release candidate of the 6.3 version,
due to be released on May 25th. For additional information about the
release, along with download and format options, see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs
The BLFS Development team is pleased to announce the release of the
6.3-rc2 version of BLFS. This is a release candidate of the 6.3 version,
due to be released on May 25th. For additional information about the
release, along with download and format options, see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/18/08 14:36 CST:
> I wanted to wait a bit before commenting to see if anyone else would
> comment first. But perhaps the lack of comments is in part because
> people feel it has all been said already?
>
> [snip proposal]
I don't enter these types of discu
LFS Trac wrote these words on 05/19/08 20:00 CST:
>
> Comment (by Bryan Kadzban):
>
> Since upstream has already written a set of rules that will work for all
> these cases already, I'd like to simply use them. :-)
>
I am all for this in all cases where LFS has/is going to/thinking about
devia
Zachary Kotlarek wrote these words on 05/29/08 20:24 CST:
> http://zinux.cynicbytrade.com/svn/devel/dhcp/iproute2.diff
I'm not sure this patch qualifies as an LFS patch. Patches in LFS
are used to fix something that is broken or provide required
functionality that is not available without t
FYI
Original Message
Subject: Error on contribute page
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:04:53 +0100
From: Abbas Qayyum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi.
Not sure who to email so just searched for contact. The page
(http://www.linuxfromscratch.or
The BLFS Development team is pleased to announce the release of the
6.3-rc3 version of BLFS. This is a release candidate of the 6.3 version,
due to be released on August 24th. For additional information about the
release, along with download and format options, see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/b
The BLFS Development team is pleased to announce the release of the
6.3 version of BLFS. For additional information about the release,
along with download and format options, see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/6.3-release_notes.html
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Hi Steve, try http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/LFS-20080825/html/.
> Unfortunately, it looks like I'll be AWOL for a while longer yet.
> I no longer have a PC capable of building LFS (restricted to a
> locked-down work laptop). However, I'm sure if you wouldn't min
TheOldFellow wrote:
> With the few suggestions from Greg, this looks quite good enough for
> SVN, and moves everything well forward.
I'd like to see us also use a snapshot of Glibc-2.8
in this updated build as well. It appears there will
be no more tarballs coming from the Glibc devs. As
far as Ul
Hi all,
I noticed that the Ncurses author creates patches against
the 5.6 version. I can't remember if this has been
discussed before, and if it has then my apologies for
not remembering.
Anyway, please read the README file at:
ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/5.6/
Seems to me we should be app
William Immendorf wrote:
> We need to change some of the elements and replace them with new elements
No disrespected intended, but who is this guy? Has he
ever contributed to the book? Is this Gerard's nephew
or something. I'm really confused. This doesn't sound
like anything I've ever read on thi
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Yeah, me too. Eventually, I discovered the cause and came up with a
> workaround:
>
> http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2008-September/001280.html
And if you follow Greg's link, you'll see that his workaround is:
cp -v ../glibc-$GLIBC_VER/iconvdata/gconv-mod
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Umm, you also need a patch in addition to above:
>
> http://www.diy-linux.org/downloads/patches/glibc-2.8-iconv-tests-1.patch
Thanks, Greg.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the abo
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Pleased to see you guys have accepted this. I'm not sure that
> offering you a welcome is appropriate, you've both been here longer
> than I have, but for sure you have my support.
Actually, just for the record, I'm a newbie in LFS compared
to Ken. He's overestimating my time
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Actually, just for the record, I'm a newbie in LFS compared
> to Ken. He's overestimating my time here. I remember my first
> post to an LFS list and was drilled my an ex-member (who I
> won't name) for "which list", when he thought th
Hi all,
This is mostly to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
I've got many commits ready to go and I didn't want us to
be conflicting with one another. Do you want me to do the
updates. I've got package updates and textual updates as
well, all ready to go.
Let me know.
However, I've got a question
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> [snip entire message]
In case anyone is interested, here is the list of LFS packages
I used in my most recent build. There are some packages which
have updates beyond what DJ's experimental book has. There's
more info here than is needed, but I'm just c
DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Sure, if you've had time to test all the changes. I was going through a
>> manual build to clear up a couple of left over items (gcc fixincludes,
>> man-db, new dependencies for Appendix C, etc.)
Well, I've not checked much of BLFS, but we can cross that bridge
when we get t
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I meant LFS specific, in so far that the system can reproduce itself.
> We are going to break BLFS to some extent. This is unavoidable. I
> think we are on the same page WRT to what needs to be done. If you want
> to go ahead and take the lead, go ahead and commit whatever
Hi all,
I'm about to begin commits for package updates to LFS SVN.
I'm reviewing things first and I noticed in DJ's book that
the --disable-decimal-float parameter is passed in the GCC
Pass1 configure command.
This apparently is for the MPFR package which is built
during GCC-Pass1. However, in th
Hi all,
Noted in the DJ build that he's commented out (removed?) the
instructions to build just a partial set of the locales to
satisfy the tests of Glibc and other packages later on.
I'm going to commit what DJ has (the partial locale list
omitted). If it is determined that we want what was orig
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Still there in latest snapshot:
>>
>> [snip known errors]
>>
> And after applying the copy that Greg suggested:
>
> [snip the math error]
>
> The copy command should be:
> cp -v ../glibc-2.8-20080929/iconvdata/gconv-modules iconvdata
> and be inserted betw
DJ Lucas wrote:
> At a later date, I'd like to make the patch add the copy command, and
> skip annexc test completely since it's been broken for so long.
That doesn't help me commit the Glibc update right now. If we
leave the inconv and math errors, we need to document them.
I sent a mail to th
Lefteris Dimitroulakis wrote:
> New packages
> GMP-4.2.4 and MPFR-2.3.2 are missing from
> ch.3.2. All Packages.
Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information
William Immendorf wrote:
> I have a new patch that removes the Mktemp package permentaly and mentions
> Mktemp in Coreutils. This fixes #2194.
Thanks, William. I'll update this when I get to the Coreutils
update. I may not pull out all the mktemp stuff completely from
the book, as it is all comme
DJ Lucas wrote:
> And it also broke validation someplace. I'll fix both right quick if
> you haven't already.
Then there is some problem with the Makefile because 'make lfs'
which says it does validation runs clean without issues, but
indeed 'make validate' chokes.
I've been using 'make lfs'.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Would you mind please adding the ildoubl test patch & iconv_tests patches to
> the patches repo, so that jhalfs can download them automatically please?
I did add them to the repo. It is my understanding that LFS was
converted to be like BLFS in that the patches are moved
Hi all,
I noticed that Bruce just closed the Ticket for the Perl-5.10.0
update. I would like to go on record that I disagree with this.
It clearly says that this release is in the "Maintenance" branch
(as opposed to the "Development" branch). And even though it is
a .0 release which the Perl devs
William Immendorf wrote:
> BTW, what is the order of the updates?
I'm simply doing them sequentially, starting in Chapter 5.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Yes, I just sent a message on the same topic. Maintenance means only
> bug/security fix - no new features that _will_ be required for newer
> 'stable' packages. I think the latests_testing link is only there to
> suffice until 5.11 development line begins. The development f
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I was going on the web page
>
> http://www.cpan.org/src/README.html
>
> where they clearly say that 5.10.0 is a testing release. They also say "For
> stable production use [of] the maint branches are recommended."
>
> That was my rationale. Am I missing something?
Yes.
Hi all,
Noted in DJ's book (I'll continue to refer to it as that
even though his book is what will be SVN, he's the one
that got all this stuff going) that we've dropped the
i18n patch for Coreutils. IIRC, upstream won't touch it,
and I think I remember there may have been a discussion
about it he
William Immendorf wrote:
> I created a Trac ticket about LZMA utils, and I thought it would make a nice
> addon to 6.4. So, it's best to move it there. LZMA in 6.4 forever.
I cannot speak for the entire community, but William you are simply
coming off too strong for my tastes. However, on this su
Hi all,
This message is directed to experienced LFS Editors, but
FYI for everyone else.
There's a note in the 'packages.ent' file that says:
" When updating e2fsprogs, remember to check the list
of acceptable features that can be shown by debugfs in
chapter02/creatingfilesystem.xml"
That
Hi all,
Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
This can be approached in one of two ways:
1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
be needed to be built before GCC pass1 as GMP is built inside
the GCC Pass1 instructions.
2. Add it to the Host Requirem
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
> This can be approached in one of two ways:
>
> 1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
> be needed to be built before GCC pass1 as GMP is built inside
> the GCC
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If we can build it in LFS without additional host support, then we should do
> that. Just moving the order of builds would be preferable to a new host
> requirement, even if we need to add M4 to chapter 5.
It is not "if" we need to add it to Chapter 5. It is required
by GM
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble
> spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.
I'm not sure it was ever discussed. DJ went out on his own and
built a version of the book that we've since sort of adopted as
t
Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
Yes, that brings back things I remember. Thanks, Phil
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> * GCC has a mechanism built in to build them and use them the way it
> needs to. If we would just let it build them, then there's that much
> less possibility of breakage due to misconfiguration.
>
> * I don't know if I particularly want to have two extra libs insta
Greg Schafer wrote:
> This Perl version includes s static version of Zlib. Better to link
> against the system Zlib? I think so.
I would as well had I known. Thanks for the tip. I'll look into
it.
> The above post also refers to a test failure in the Syslog module. You're
> not seeing that?
No
Steve Crosby wrote:
> So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
> or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
> prefer.
After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this is the
way to go. Build GMP and MPFR inline with GCC (static) in
Chap
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:
> I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be
> slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
>
> We already have bison as a host req. Bison depends on m4, so most
> distros I know will have m4 installed as a dependency
Hi all,
Looking at the tickets in Trac, there are a couple that
really aren't SVN issues, but instead point to the stable
book in which case to resolve the issues, it takes an
entry in the stable errata.
Therefore, I think that someone with Trac rights should
create a milestone called "Errata".
Hi all,
Please reference http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2181
In this ticket there are 3 issues I'd like to address so we can
close this ticket.
Issue 1:
The /usr/bin/wall program from Sysvinit program is overwritten
during the Util-linux-ng installation. Choices are:
1. Not worry
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hmm. I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if milestone is the
> right place. Typically, the milestone should point to a release. So
> since the issue would be for a specific book (the current stable one)
> the milestone should probably point to that book version.
Hi all,
Noted in DJ's book that he adds the installation of VIM to
Chapter 5. I do the same on my builds as well.
However, I believe I remember that the community's consensus
is that it not be there.
Thoughts from others?
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: h
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Noted in DJ's book that he adds the installation of VIM to
> Chapter 5. I do the same on my builds as well.
Please disregard. I was looking at DJ's chapter 6.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfro
Hi all,
Thanks to Greg Shafer who pointed out several things about our
current Perl build method in Chapter 6, I'd like to propose the
following changes:
1. Remove the sed for the "Fix an incompatibility with gcc-4.3.2:"
I have confirmed it is not required.
2. Add the following before the config
Could someone with the proper privileges update Trac
or the mailing lists or whatever it is so that when
Robert (who I didn't even know had SVN commit privs)
makes a commit, it will show up in the -book list.
Thanks,
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.li
Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr. wrote:
> Not a major issue, but a recent thread shows using the make STRIP=yes on
> iana-etc to cut out comments and accelerate the port search on port
> resolution. In the new LSF does anyone remember to put this on the book?
Not sure about the "accelerate the port s
TheOldFellow wrote:
> I'm holding off the rebuild until you guys have finished the updates,
> which seems imminent if you've got to 'u'. Then I'll test build 'by
> the book'.
Well, I was running through the book sequentially starting in
chapter 5. I'm into chapter 6 now and it will go very fast.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I've done a search of the LSB-Core-Generic-3.2 and LSB-Core-IA32-3.2 PDFs and
> didn't find any mention of 'addpart', 'delpart' or 'partx'.
>
> Looking at the man pages for each, I'm having a hard time understanding the
> use-cases for each of these programs. Why would
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just a couple of data points:
>
> [snip good data]
Good post, Bruce.
Your input right now is the most swaying of anything.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Apparently the use case is that after using fdisk to edit the partition
> table, one would normally reboot so that Linux knows about the new partition
> and one can run 'mkfs' on the new /dev node. Instead of rebooting, one can
> in fact use partprobe, or partx. I've
Hi all,
I'm way on the downhill side of getting all the package
updates in. Groff is sort of a bugaboo, however. The
DJ book uses the Groff-UTF8 package, but I'm not sure it
does much.
Please give some input if you have any on this subject.
It would be an addition to LFS Chapter 6. Do we need it?
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Roll back to file-4.21. The newer versions of file do not display the
> character set if type is text/troff
>
> Well, that is a separate issue. File is still broken (either 4.21 with
> illogical guessing at the character encoding of text files, or 4.25 with
> non-work
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I reverted to 4.23. I never got a chance to see if 4.26 worked. In
> 4.25, the -e (exclude) switch is broken, both long an short options do
> not work.
Yes, I've confirmed that. However, only *parts* of the -e
switch are broken. And I see in the code why. I actually
was able
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I actually
> was able to patch the file.c source and things work again.
If anyone is interested in looking at or testing the patch,
here it is (it's also in the repo):
Submitted By: Randy McMurchy
Date:2008-10-08
Initial Pack
Hi all,
Sorry about not getting these final few package updates in
the book. Real Life got in the way a little bit. I should
have it all done by this evening, however.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy, when you updated GCC, did you consider tickets 2114 and 2056?
See the remarks I made to that ticket. I didn't build with
the switch, so I can't comment. I really don't want to be
responsible for that one.
As far as 2114 goes, I didn't see (the issues) what the ticket
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Sorry about not getting these final few package updates in
> the book. Real Life got in the way a little bit. I should
> have it all done by this evening, however.
Alas, today has simply been a day where I could not
contribute. Tomorrow will be better and we
Hi all,
I'm new to this list but I searched the archives for
anything that might be related to the issue I'm about
to describe and couldn't find anything so I thought
I'd bring it up here.
It was brought to my attention that sometime after
the 4.23 release the -e (--exclude) parameter did not
wor
ts for the file UNIX utility <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: LFS Development
On Oct 9, 3:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy McMurchy) wrote:
-- Subject: Problems with 'file --exclude troff'
> [snip my message to the list]
Well, both the fortran test and the troff test have been
conver
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> This means that the troff test in the File package is not
> "broken". I see no reason to update to the latest version.
That should be: I see no reason to *not* update to the latest
version.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
Hi all,
I made many, many changes to the Shadow package during the
update to the most recent version. I like the changes, but
I encourage everyone that can to render the book and look
at it. If you can't render it, it will be available tomorrow
in the SVN book.
If there are problems or questions,
Hi all,
Starting in version 126 of Udev, the test directory including
the udev-test.pl test file no longer ships in the tarball.
Though DJ's instructions for version 126 does indeed change
the 'make test' to 'make check', 'make check' does nothing.
I've been looking over the udev mailing list and
Hi all,
I used the readlink command in the Udev instructions to move
the .so files to /usr/lib as they are initially installed in
/lib. Credit Dan Nicholson for the initial work on this change.
This was started in BLFS and I believe it to be the right
direction to go.
This has benefits, and drawb
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> I used the readlink command in the Udev instructions to move
>> the .so files to /usr/lib as they are initially installed in
>> /lib. Credit Dan Nicholson for the initial work on this change.
>> This was started in BLFS and I
Hi all,
Seems I overlooked getting the update of Module-init-tools
into the book. Doing that now.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I noted that it didn't do anything too. I suppose we need to now add:
>
> "This package does not come with a test suite."
That was done during the package update. :-)
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa
Hi all,
There's a minor ticket about explaining what the installation
commands in the Linux Headers installation do, and it occurred
to me that is it possible that there's a redundant step?
Here's the existing commands (with my comments for the
book inserted as well):
First ensure the source tre
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:
>>
>>
>>> I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be
>>> slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
>>>
>>>
Reece Dunn wrote:
> I asked this question on 21/11/2007 ("Linux Headers question"
> [http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-November/060618.html]),
> which likely resulted in that ticket item. I got essentially the same
> response from Thomas Trepl and Mark Rosenstand:
>
> Thomas Trep
Hi all,
Does anyone have a little cheat sheet or some notes handy
that would help me use jhalfs for the first time. I have
a decently fast x86 machine with a spare partition that
isn't doing anything right now.
I've never used the jhalfs utility. I don't even know
where to download it from. Any h
DJ Lucas wrote:
> OK?
Sounds good to me.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> This package does come with a test suite, however, it cannot be
>> run at this time because we do not have a C++ compiler yet.
>>
> Actually, I've never seen any discussion on this, but I believe that it
> was suggested to be more "personal" in one o
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Since M4 is basically a short CMMI install at 0.2 SBU and 10M disk, I'd
> prefer
> to see it retained in Chapter 5 and moved. It may not be strictly necessary
> but
> the overhead of doing so is really negligible and the more we build using our
> own tools without relyin
Hi all,
I'm probably off-line the rest of the night as my son is
playing in a college football game on TV and it's about to
start. I'm going to sit back, relax and watch it.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: S
LFS Trac wrote:
> #2056: Consider using --disable-shared for gcc pass 1
> +---
> Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Hi all,
Looking at the build order, I'm curious as to why the Chapter 6
Sed installation is so far up in the build. It is built in
Chapter 5, and there's only a binary program installed (other
than docs and locales), so there should be no real need to build
it out of alphabetical order.
Or am I m
Hi all,
Just to satisfy my curiosity, why do we have the Coreutils
installation so far up in the build order in Chapter 6?
Is there a Coreutils binary that won't operate correctly
from /tools/bin? Perhaps the chroot command?
No big deal, just wondering if anyone knows.
--
Randy
--
http://linu
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 10/12/08 10:59 CST:
> Because the Coreutils test suite has a lot of dependencies.
Not trying to be rude, Robert, but I don't understand what you mean.
If the test suite has lots of dependencies, then it would be *later*
in the build, right?
I'm wondering why
Hi all,
I don't consider this a big issue, but want to throw it out there.
I noticed when I ran the new Shadow 'groupmems' program, it segfaults.
I didn't think to much about it at the time as this program is new
to Shadow and the man page says you must create a special group and
set the program
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:20 CST:
> I followed the lfs updates via lfs-book. But in archives (and in my mailbox),
> revisions go from r8593 to r8595, without r8594. And when I study r8595, I
> see something happent in r8594. Is there a way to see what happent? what a
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:27 CST:
> There may not be a technical reason for installing Coreutils early, just that
> it's one of the most heavily used packages.
I know there was much work put into rearranging the build order of
the various packages so that as much as possib
401 - 500 of 1031 matches
Mail list logo
