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

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 01:55 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>>From what I can tell from the information you provided (following all >>relevant links), this is a tough bug to follow. I stopped reading >>when it was starting to dwell on the specs of I

Re: Use of tar in LFS books

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/28/05 10:44 CST: > For the glibc-linuxthreads package we use 'tar -xjvf' and for the > bash-docs package we use 'tar -zxf'. Should we continue to use verbosity > for one and not the other? I believe the -v option should not be used on either. My philosophy

Re: Use of tar in LFS books

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/28/05 11:20 CST: > Indeed. But I had thought that there had been a technically correct > reason for including that. Anyone care to refresh my memory? Bruce usually summarizes this one up really well. As you Jeremy, I've forgotten the exact details, but ther

Re: Use of tar in LFS books

Andrew Benton wrote these words on 08/28/05 12:27 CST: > But this would work > > tar xfC somefile.tar.gz /somewhere Thanks for the lesson Andrew! I have always been under the misguided impression that the argument to the parameter must follow the parameter. Meaning -f required the somefile.tar.

Re: Recommended dependencies.

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/28/05 18:39 CST: > Seems reasonable to me. Want to take a stab at it? > > It should go in the "Important Information" chapter, but I don't know if > it should be a new section or a subsection of "Notes on Building Software". I think a sub-section would be mos

Re: Sed assumptions

Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/29/05 18:45 CST: > Ken in chapter 5 and before sed -e, needs to be used but after that sed > -i is fine for chatpers 6 and up. What does this have to do with a sed -i command used in the Chapter 5 - GCC instructions? :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2

Re: Sed assumptions

Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/29/05 19:53 CST: > Chapter 5 is using the distro's host, if it's a earlier version of sed > that doesn't support -i it won't work. Never mind, Jim. :-( But, just to summarize: Ken asked "Why is there a sed -i in Chapter 5 GCC instructions. It won't work ther

Re: Sed assumptions

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/30/05 01:36 CST: > Whoops, I thought I'd fixed them all already :( Basically, as Jim said, > we can't assume the host can handle '-i'. Therefore, gcc-pass2 needs to > be changed, as do any other occurrences prior to building `sed' in > chapter 5. The '

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

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 23:57 CST: > Basically, the symptom is that text consoles are screwed up after > starting X, and in some cases (Trident Cyber*) a completely white x > display. To reproduce, 'startx' and then 'Ctrl+Alt+F1' and see if the > usual text shows up, of if you get

SQLite

Hi all, Should SQLite be added to BLFS? It is a small, compact, very fast, widely-supported, award-winning damn-good SQL engine. Installation is clean, even with GCC-4, though there are some things that deserve mention. 1. It doesn't like to be built in the source tree (think GCC or Glibc). 2. I

Re: Expected glibc test failures with gcc4 ?

Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/03/05 15:58 CST: > 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 ? [EMAIL PROTE

PC Magazine article

Hi all, Not sure if anyone has noticed yet, but the recent PC Mag has an article about Linux and LFS is mentioned. See the article at: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1854005,00.asp -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release ver

Re: [Fwd: Comments Regarding "D.I.Y. Linux" from PC Magazine]

[cc'ing to lfs-chat where this thread now belongs; please direct all replies there] Chris Staub wrote these words on 09/04/05 23:25 CST: > Subject: > Comments Regarding "D.I.Y. Linux" from PC Magazine > From: > Erik Glyttov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip bunch of crap] I think the guy is full of shi

Re: [Fwd: Comments Regarding "D.I.Y. Linux" from PC Magazine]

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/05/05 07:08 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>[cc'ing to lfs-chat where this thread now belongs; please direct >>all replies there] > > I don't subscribe to lfs-chat, nor am I about to. Who pissed in your corn flakes thi

Re: gcc4 - proposed changes to glibc check

Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/05/05 11:03 CST: > [snip bunch of good stuff] > Dislikes ? Objections ? Responses of "but it all passes on my > pentium-plus" ? Better wording ? Good work, Ken. FWIW, I think that the SBU and disk space should include building all locales. Here are my figure

Re: gcc4 - proposed changes to glibc check

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.time >

Re: [Fwd: Comments Regarding "D.I.Y. Linux" from PC Magazine]

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/05/05 11:11 CST: > It would be wise of you to learn to read more carefully and to think a > bit more clearly before you speak. I read and comprehend excellently, however, thanks for thinking about me. :-) I suppose I should have put a disclaimer in my ori

GCC-4 Update(2)

Hi all, Seems GCC-4 has its issues, but nothing that there isn't workarounds for. I'm seeing good results so far, (for Jim's purposes, I'm testing packages as I install them) and feel good that the upstream devs are committed to using GCC-4. Here's a current list of packages known to compile usin

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

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/08/05 14:06 CST: > If the snapshot works well, we should seriously consider using that in > the current gcc4 branch instead of the patches in place now. To try and get a better understanding of the issues, can you tell me what I need to look for to see if

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 15:49 CDT: > A few additions: > > gnome > > gnome-vfs-2.10.1 I'm curious if you have FAM installed, Ken? My build of GNOME-VFS is puking up during the configure stage trying to use the conftest.sh program to test the fam.h header. Here's errors from the

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:22 CST: > Ken Moffat wrote these words on 09/09/05 15:49 CDT: > > >> A few additions: >> >>gnome >> >> gnome-vfs-2.10.1 I just noticed that you built GNOME-2.10, whereas I am building GNOME-2.12. Not sure if

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

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 doesn't find it? They (GNOME devs) claim it is the only

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/09/05 16:52 CST: > Yeah, ask the GNOME devs to get with the picture and support iNotify :) > If "#include " works around the problem, I'd just use that > to be honest (assuming it doesn't cause any further problems, of course). It's what I have in mind

Xorg GCC-4 issues

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:

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:10 CST: > Why fix the header and then revert it back? Other FAM packages (e.g. > KDE) will probably have the same compliation error. If the fix is > technically correct, just fix it during fam. KDE has no issues with building as it is. What if a d

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:15 CST: > You mean they would overwrite an existing libfam and fam.h from > the FAM package? Not that it really matters (I did read up on it), > but I didn't really think it was prudent for devs to use the same > names for files

Re: GCC-4 Update(2)

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/09/05 18:27 CST: > It is supposed to be a replacement for fam, Tushar, I'm busy with the GCC-4 work right now. Could you write an RFC (using a new subject thread) to suggest this package as a replacement for FAM? It would be easy enough for me to shut down

GTK-2.8.x

Hi all, Are we ready to move to the new GTK/Glib/Cairo/Pango/ATK stuff. I see that David has the GTK+ and Glib bugs spoken for, but I'll be adding Cairo to the book this weekend, and was wondering what the community thinks about moving forward. I'd like to get the GNOME stuff updated and it requi

Re: GCC4 branch merge

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/09/05 15:39 CST: > Trunk is now on gcc-4.0.1, and is open once again! Cool! Thanks, Matt. BLFS will of course have some issues, but the big stuff should be in the book by the time LFS renders for the first time using GCC-4.0.1. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld

Re: Xorg GCC-4 issues

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/09/05 17:10 CDT: > 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: Actu

Xorg patch

Hi all, Noted in the LFS patches repo is that all the Xorg patches are in a 'xorg' directory and named xorg-6.8.x-patch_name-x.patch. This does not comply with the naming standards. I am about to add the Xorg patch to the BLFS repo. Currently, the patch is named xorg-6.8.2-gcc4_fixes-1.patch I'

Re: Xorg patch

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/10/05 18:55 CST: > BTW, is there a naming convention for the directories under which the > patch exists? I don't know. However, I figured if anyone knew it would be you. At http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/credits.html it says you are a Patches Project Main

Re: Xorg patch

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 09/10/05 19:31 CST: > Why don't we stay with xorg all around right now (with the exception of > source code file names) until the next version and then transition to > X11R6 (or would that be X11R7?) when the next version comes out. Too late. Already committed usi

Samba-3.0.20

Hi all, Samba-3.0.20 brings more to the table than just an updated package. Unfortunately, it also brings some API changes in. It's already bit me on trying to compile GNOME-VFS. Here's one example of a change: In the 3.0.14a version of /usr/include/libsmbclient.h we have this: /** call

Re: Samba-3.0.20

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 09/10/05 22:12 CST: > My question is this: > > Do we hold off on updating BLFS to Samba-3.0.20 until everyone > sort of catches up to the changes, or do we press on and patch > the packages that use changed stuff in libsmbclient? Here is some

Re: Samba-3.0.20

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 09/10/05 22:47 CST: > We really need to see how hard it would be to make the patches. I can't imagine it would be that hard to make the patches. In fact, I've installed all of the programs you've mentioned and they all compile fine as best as I can tell. I don't k

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 13:50 CST: > Archaic and I have put our heads together to try and come up with a more > reasonable set of Udev rules. These are based on the following criteria: Looking over the rules very briefly, I noticed that the comm devices are not going to be

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 13:50 CST: > Archaic and I have put our heads together to try and come up with a more > reasonable set of Udev rules. These are based on the following criteria: Looking over the new rules proposal further, I would like to go on record as being again

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 14:05 CST: >>Looking over the rules very briefly, I noticed that the comm devices >>are not going to be defined. Did I interpret that correctly? >> >>If so, I think it is a mistake. One couldn't even use his serial mouse. > > Can you use your mouse on

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 14:15 CST: > 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 devic

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/13/05 14:22 CST: > If that's the case, then I somewhat retract. However, I still feel that > if you're going to do something, do it right the first time. Yes. I should have stated in my earlier message that I believe a *properly created* device node for an

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 15:05 CST: > Hmm, I'd equate that with telling folks to grab the blfs-bootscripts > package and do a 'make install' (i.e. install every single bootscript, > whether it's required or not). No Matt, that is a bad analogy. Bootscripts run at boot time

Re: GTK-2.8.x

Richard A Downing wrote these words on 09/13/05 15:00 CST: > I just got though building it on the GCC-4 system. It appears to work > well. (gtk+-2.8.3/glib-2.8.1/pango-1.10.0/atk-1.10.1/cairo-1.0.0) Probably should have moved to ATK-1.10.3 as this is what the book will be moving to. -- Randy

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 15:47 CST: > But how can *attempting to* correctly configure the devices when we > don't install the software that exercises those nodes be a good thing? > Surely one should configure the devices when one installs the software > that uses them, just

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Archaic wrote these words on 09/14/05 00:41 CST: > Stepping in even later than you... :) While I didn't expect the first > round proposal would be seen with much favor, I must point out the true > impetus of this undertaking. None of the criteria Matt listed gives the > "why" behind this, only the

Re: [RFC] Udev configuration changes

Archaic wrote these words on 09/14/05 00:41 CST: > I do not think that if it is the > main argument that it should have enough power to overrule the benefit. But what is the benefit? I've asked this question now three times in this thread and have yet to receive an answer. What does LFS gain by e

Re: RFC: Using gamin instead of fam

Andrew Benton wrote these words on 09/18/05 16:00 CST: > One other thing, Gamin has a dependency on glib-2 Yes, it does. And some unexpected behavior: Starting KDE starts the gam_server daemon. However exiting KDE doesn't stop the daemon. The daemon is killed when you log out of the current she

Re: How to use the pkgsrc of NetBSD with LFS?

John Kelly wrote these words on 09/18/05 17:55 CST: > If you want more software later, just put it in /usr/local, and forget > about "packages." I find it very useful to know how every file on the system was installed, and which package installed it. For folks like me that like this info, some so

Re: How to use the pkgsrc of NetBSD with LFS?

John Kelly wrote these words on 09/18/05 18:13 CST: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:03:12 -0500, Randy McMurchy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I find it very useful to know how every file on the system was installed, >>and which package installed it. > > Why? Some

Re: Time to remove hotplug?

Richard A Downing wrote these words on 09/19/05 09:21 CST: > Isn't it strange how every other engineering disipline goes in for lots > of useful diagrams, but as soon as you get to the OpenSource movement > everything MUST BE just words. Nuts. Understanding is more important > than Sacred Gnus !

Re: FAQ Maintainer?

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/19/05 13:55 CST: > There are others that are just as outdated. Anyway, just thought I'd > mention it. I don't have the time to put into it, but perhaps someone > else does? Months ago I volunteered to Matt to maintain the FAQ, but he politely said that it

Re: FAQ Maintainer?

Justin Knierim wrote these words on 09/19/05 14:20 CST: [snip] Is the clock on your machine perhaps running about 20 minutes fast? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 14:04:00 up 170 days, 13:

Re: FAQ Maintainer?

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/19/05 14:29 CST: > Wow, I must have been in an "Thou shalt not delegate anything" mood at > the time! If you are still willing to maintain it, that'd be great, if > not I'll open the position up for someone else to take on. Not sure it was like that, but

Re: XPDF and Motif

Michael Kipper wrote these words on 09/20/05 14:40 CST: > xpdf was the program I wanted out of the package. > Should Motif not be a required prerequisite then? It already is. However, BLFS uses the Lesstif package instead of OpenMotif. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [g

Re: gcc-4.x installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/20/05 15:53 CST: > Please revert the change and comment out the note for now. When > building Ch 6, I will see if Option 2 mentioned above can still be > used. That would be nice if you tried it again. This is what crossed up Bruce and I so badly when we t

Re: Patch for gnumeric-1.4.3

Hugo Villeneuve wrote these words on 09/18/05 23:51 CST: > I needed to apply this patch for gnumeric to compile correctly with > libgsf-1.12.3. This patch updates gnumeric to new GSF_CLASS_FULL signature. > Gnumeric appears to compile and work fine after this modification. This patch appears to

Re: gcc fixcincludes

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 09/27/05 00:23 CST: > The book used to disable gcc's fixinc. The patch that did this has > been removed. Any particular reason? > > The changelog states that we may need to fix the host headers, but > fails to mention a reason. I checked the lfs-dev archives f

UDEV/Hotplug broken?

Hi all, As has been mentioned many times recently on BLFS-Dev, it appears the current implementation of UDEV/Hotplug is broken as it pertains to automatic loading of kernel modules. I noticed that adding the following line to a UDEV rule will get the Hotplug events to work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/

Re: ALSA modules and restore volumes

Richard A Downing wrote these words on 10/25/05 12:16 CST: > Should we ask the LFS guys to take that out of their rules, so that we > can deal with it in BLFS? I am against that idea because the device nodes are going to be created regardless if there is a rule or not. Only thing is if LFS doesn

Re: config.site

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these words on 10/30/05 22:34 CST: > Why don't we just have a regular /usr/man directory? Because it doesn't conform with the FHS. > Why get rid of them > at all? What's the rationale behind the individual package devs who use > the different locations? I'm sure the

Re: coreutils 5.93 uname patch is missing

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/06/05 22:44 CST: > Is the uname patch really required in > the book? Is it really critical to apply that patch? If it is, why has > it never been submitted upstream? This was just discussed a week or so ago, and the consensus was that folks wanted it. As

Re: LFS Book indention

M.Canales.es wrote these words on 11/11/05 12:30 CST: > In resume, can I to start indenting LFS-SVN?, or should to wait until after > 6.1.1 release and the alphabetical merge? I don't remember any discussion about the "alphabetical merge". Is this something that is deemed so trivial that it isn'

Re: TLS Fix for 6.1.1

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/05 13:10 CST: > [snip all] Hey dude! How about moving that clock up about 6 hours? :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 19:12:00 up 58 days, 4:36, 3 use

Re: User IDs and Group IDs

M.Canales.es wrote these words on 11/22/05 13:48 CST: > I would prefer an html page on the web server. And I'm voluntary to update > all > books to that new set of standard user and group IDs if needed. Why on earth would we need "new" standards? We already have a standard. The only thing that

Re: User IDs and Group IDs

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/22/05 13:58 CST: > Instead of assigning a fixed ID number, why not define a range. For example: > * 1-20: Core users and groups (must have on every system). These are > created manually using the cat command in >

Re: User IDs and Group IDs

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/22/05 14:09 CST: > I didn't really follow that original discussion. What was the reason for > that decision? http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2005-April/009761.html -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]

Re: User IDs and Group IDs

Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 11/22/05 14:31 CST: > That's fine. The scheme is not of importance -- it's the coordination. > If in BLFS book Postfix ends up with UID 21, then Postfix in the CLFS > and/or HLFS books also has to use ID 21. > > When we're all adding new components, we shoul

Chapter 5 SVN SBU/Disk Space

For what it's worth on a build of today's SVN Chapter 5: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /mnt/rmlnew1/build/Installed > for DIR in `ls -rt`; do echo $DIR; cat $DIR/diskspace.used; cat $DIR/sbu.time; echo; done binutils-2.16.1-Pass1 190668 KB 1.00 SBU gcc-4.0.2-Pass1 336696 KB 8.64 SBU linux-libc-headers-2.

Chapter 5 SVN Stripping Notes

For what it's worth: The Chapter 5 section titled "Stripping" is somewhat skewed. Here is what I get when building exactly by the book (other than I use a user different than the LFS user and I install the BC and Vim packages). [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /mnt/rmlnew1/tools > ls -l total 44 drwxr-xr-x 2

Re: Chapter 5 SVN Stripping Notes

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/23/05 08:45 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>The Chapter 5 section titled "Stripping" is somewhat skewed. Here is >>what I get when building exactly by the book (other than I use a user >>different than the LFS user and

Redundancy in Chapter 6 "Creating Directories"

Hi all, Not sure if this is intentional or not, but if it isn't then perhaps y'all may want to do something about it. There is some redundancy in the Chapter 6 "Creating Directories" section. The following lines could be changed as follows: install -dv /{sbin,srv,usr/local,var,opt} to install -d

Chapter 6 "Creating Directories"

What exactly is the purpose of the Chapter 6 "Creating Directories"? Yes, I understand what it is doing, but is it necessary? Wouldn't all these directories get created as packages are installed? And what brings me to write this, is that the "Creating Directories" section appears to be incomplete

Re: Chapter 6 "Creating Directories"

Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 11/23/05 11:04 CST: > A package may assume a directory to exist. It has a file to install so > it'll use the plain old copy command: Then that package is broken and needs to be reported upstream. > Does every single package in both LFS and BLFS do this? Ca

Glibc Test Suite

Hi all, In the SVN Chapter 6 Glibc instructions, it says to expect math test failures during the test suite. I've always seen these before with GCC-4.0.x, however, the latest build using Glibc-2.3.6 and GCC-4.0.2 doesn't seem to exhibit these errors. How about others that have built recent SVN?

Incorrect permissions on some man pages

Hi all, Not sure how long it has been this way, but I believe it is the Glibc package (linuxthreads stuff) that installs these man pages with 755 permissions. It's not really "wrong", but it is unusual. Note this first. :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~ > find /usr/share/man | wc -l 12129 and now this:

Re: Incorrect permissions on some man pages

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/23/05 12:49 CST: > IMO, we should send these reports/fixes upstream instead of fixing > unwarranted permissions in the book as we currently do for some > packages. However, in the meantime until they are fixed... Who's to say that the maintainer would act

GCC Test Results

Hi all, In the SVN book, it says in Chapter 6 that under no circumstances should you not run the test suite for GCC. It then refers you back to Chapter 5 where the discussion about the test suite is. Here in Chapter 5 you are referred to a URL to compare your results with "known good" ones. The U

Re: Glibc Test Suite

Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 11/23/05 13:48 CST: > Last week or so I build SVN alphabetical from Jeremy's > repo using glibc-2.3.6, gcc-4.0.2 and binutils-2.16.1. CFLAGS, > CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS unset. Here's the errors from glibc: > > make[2]: [/tools/src/build/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] E

Re: GCC Test Results

Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 11/23/05 13:56 CST: > Sure, post them please. Results are from today's SVN (SVN-05118) on a i686 platform: Short summary: === g++ Summary === # of expected passes11130 # of unexpected failures1 # of unexpected successes

Re: Incorrect permissions on some man pages

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/23/05 14:12 CST: > There is nothing for us to do. Having 755 permissions on man pages is > not going to cause a problem. I mentioned that it "wasn't really broken" in my initial message. My intentions were to point out an *inconsistency*. Of the more than

Re: User IDs and Group IDs

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 11/23/05 14:15 CST: > Agreed, though I'm going to introduce one now. When upgrading the > kernel so that it no longer matches version numbers with llh, we need a > note on the llh page(s) stating that this isn't a problem because... How about: Do not be al

Re: GCC Test Results

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 11/23/05 14:01 CST: > Results are from today's SVN (SVN-05118) on a i686 platform: This was a typo. Should be SVN-20051118. Additionally, I misplaced some text. The following is correct for the long summary. > Native configuration is i686-p

Re: GCC Test Results

Archaic wrote these words on 11/23/05 14:59 CST: > Randy, please email your complete set of make check logs or provide a > URL for me and I will put them where they need to be. Okay, I'll do that just as soon as I finish the build. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (G

Typo on the Sed page

SVN - Chapter 6 Sed instructions it says this: "By default, Sed installs its man page in /usr/share/doc." s/man page/HTML documentation/ -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 16:12:01 up 60 day

Shadow "groups" man pages

Hi all, Though there is a sed that is supposed to suppress the installation of the 'groups' man pages, it apparently only suppresses the English version. Note: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build > grep groups /mnt/rmlnew1/build/shadow-4.0.13/install.log /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 './groups.1' '/usr/man

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 20:30 CST: > Greg Schafer wrote: >>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20003 >> >>Despite the title of that PR, the problem is not related to timeouts AFACT. > > Thanks for this. Also, I've just noticed that Randy has the same FAILs > in his b

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 20:58 CST: > I've been reading and attempting to apply in my spare time Matthias > Benkmann's hint, 'More Control and Package Management using Package > Users'. > > So. I had been thinking it would be nice if LFS and BLFS adopted (some > of) this a

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:05 CST: > Not surprised. :) Although, giving some reasons for that stance would be > appreciated. Because LFS is all about "Your Distro, Your Rules". There are many package management systems. To employ one as the standard for LFS purposes defeat

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:23 CST: > One > point that hint me really hard was this: > > "Let's say I have written a program that you would like to use. To make > it easier for you I come over to install it for you. Would you give me > the root account and then leave the ro

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:28 CST: > Well, I'd personally like to know how our current build order took > shape! Unfortunately, the answer to this question lies scattered deep > within _years_ of LFS archives, and I'm not sure that there is any > written rational behind it elsew

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:41 CST: > No need for foul language. Grow up, Jeremy. I don't mean that bad. I just mean that it is everyday talk to most people. It isn't foul, it is an expression. > This isn't hand-holding. Again go read the hint before you proclaim what > it

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:05 CST: > Not surprised. :) Although, giving some reasons for that stance would be > appreciated. Well, I believe I've satisfied that request. I'll bow out of this thread now, as my opinion has been heard. I'm not going to dwell on the same old st

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Richard A Downing wrote these words on 11/25/05 01:53 CST: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:58:24 -0500 > Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I've been reading and attempting to apply in my spare time Matthias >>Benkmann's hint, 'More Control and Package Management using Package >>Users'. > >

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 11/25/05 11:17 CST: > My vote is to keep Vim (and its dependencies) as early in chapter 6 as > possible. I agree with everything you said in the original message (most of it snipped for brevity). In fact, I build Vim in Chapter 5 when I don't automate the bu

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Chris Staub wrote these words on 11/25/05 11:25 CST: > Well, I mean for now at least. :) I mainly said that because I've been > mentioning removing autotools many, many times (mainly in the chat room) > and nobody really gave a reason why not to (except the general > "well-rounded development e

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Chris Staub wrote these words on 11/25/05 11:42 CST: > You don't stop. You should be continually evaluating what is and isn't > needed. First, you have to define "what is needed". Only then could one even begin to consider removing or adding packages to the base LFS system. -- Randy rmlscsi:

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 11/25/05 12:53 CST: > Perl is needed to run at least the Glibc testsuite, and probably other > things too. I didn't know that about Glibc. Thanks for the update. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stabl

Re: Gnome-Doc-Utils

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/25/05 03:04 CST: > The point is that Python must be built before libxml2. Python is listed > (correctly) only as an optional dep of libxml2. [snip] > > but I think it warrants a note. How does this sound? (This will be an easy-to-see beneath the Optional Python

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/25/05 15:18 CST: > I'm going to say this *one more time* and that will be it. My suggestion > was *not* about package management! It was about using the parts of that > hint that give you 'more control' over the system. If we can achieve the > same things

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/25/05 16:23 CST: > Now, if there is another way of achieving what Matthias has done - one > where we don't have to have a separate user for each package - that > would be great. In short, what I'd like to see is a clearer > understanding of the packages b

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >