On 9/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> > te
rized xorg and after that it won't matter. Anyways I
have no strong feelings against renaming the patches.
BTW, is there a naming convention for the directories under which the
patch exists?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
-
ge should be made after a new release of LFS +
BLFS so that BLFS has more time to incorporate the changes.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
if it was rejected before), maybe we can
submit it in response to the thread Matt mentioned.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
le to us?
>
Probably never submitted upstream owing to the hack.
IMO, if someone is subscribed to the coreutils mailing-list, they can
atleast submit the patch in response to the thread with the hope that
more experienced folks on their mailing-lists can take the existing
patch and morph
4 + KDE snapshots or should we stick with a
stable combination of qt3 + KDE3? Of course it is the second option :)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/f
e did not produce
anything useful.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 9/27/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 th
n if the
package that contains the headers gets upgraded, gcc will still use
the fixed (and old) header while compiling. This may lead to some
strange errors.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 9/28/05, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While ever the current build method is in use, it is my firm belief that
> the more robust and long-term solution is to disable fixincludes during
> GCC-pass2 and Ch6 GCC.
and BLFS.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PRO
y fix glibc headers).
The patch can be replaced by a sed (this is from memory so may need to
be adjusted):
sed -i '[EMAIL PROTECTED](SHELL) ./[EMAIL PROTECTED]@g'
gcc/fixincludes/Makefile.in
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscrat
ment.
How about a hint then?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
when
clues were scarce and tools weren't as good."
PS: Note that I am not suggesting that the book should add optimization flags.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www
On 10/6/05, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/5/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have been building glibc for ages now with CFLAGS=CXXFLAGS="-Os
> > -march=i686 -mtune=i686 -pipe -w" for ages now without any pro
nutils: -Os -pipe -w
gcc: -Os -pipe -w
glibc: -Os -march=i686 -mtune=i686 -pipe -w
Haven't seen any problems.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 10/6/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> > Anyways, the point of my thread is not to decide which flags are ok
> > for glibc but that the warning in the book should be removed. It could
> > probably be reworded to state
I know that they total to less than 100K, but are lessecho and lesskey
needed in /bin? Perhaps we should install everything with
--prefix=/usr and move less to /bin?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman
On 10/16/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > I know that they total to less than 100K, but are lessecho and lesskey
> > needed in /bin? Perhaps we should install everything with
> > --prefix=/usr and move less to /bin?
>
&g
On 10/16/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that they total to less than 100K, but are lessecho and lesskey
> needed in /bin? Perhaps we should install everything with
> --prefix=/usr and move less to /bin?
>
Another one :-) bashbug (installed by bash) shou
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?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-d
On 11/6/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 submitt
e ative. They updated the headers to 2.6.14 a week back. My
guess is they did not find the update worthy of a release.
BTW, looks like they made a 2.6.12.0 release but it is not on thier
download site.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
h
an idea on what the source based distros are using?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 11/10/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > On 11/10/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, looks like they made a 2.6.12.0 release but it is not on thier
> > download site.
>
> Sure it is. :) And it
On 11/10/05, Thomas Pegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> >> Does someone have an idea on what the source based distros are using?
> >
> >
> > Gentoo appears to be using their own, I think -
>
or "Could not extract $i"
rm -f $i
popd >/dev/null
done
For the current situation, make an LFS installation as per the current
book and then copy all the files from the LFS partition to /lfs1 on
the host. Repeat installation with the new build order and copy th
reated:
* groupadd -K GID_MIN=21 -K GID_MAX=99
* useradd -K UID_MIN=21 -K UID_MAX=99
One huge advantage over the current way of creating the UIDs and GIDs
is that the above commands work for users who have customized the
passwd and group files to not match *LFS.
--
Tushar Teredesai
On 11/22/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
&g
On 11/22/05, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:20:06PM -0600, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> > There is no advantage of hard-coding the UID/GID.
>
> Sure there is: less support questions. :)
But that "savings" is offset by the disc
I changed
my scripts to use sed for the adjustment. It is a lot safer (IMO).
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
idual installations, folks
can still use any scheme that they want based on their needs.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
books that use the same ID for different purposes.
With the scheme I mentioned, they would not be hard coding the UID/GID at all.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
On 11/22/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > With the scheme I mentioned, they would not be hard coding the UID/GID at
> > all.
>
> That one comes down to a preference I suppose. I don't like these
> "dynamics"
unusual.
IMO, we should send these reports/fixes upstream instead of fixing
unwarranted permissions in the book as we currently do for some
packages.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
On 11/23/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
ages), which IMO is the purpose of LFS.
Disadvantages:
* It makes the instructions slightly more complex.
* Causes problems for folks who don't want a package manager.
What do other LFSers think?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
llel on my system. I will soon be submitting a hint for review on
how to install these pacakges in parallel and select the appropriate
one based on the some envars.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/m
ing packages. Additionally, as I have stated
multiple times, you cannot just install the latest versions of these
pacakges.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
On 11/27/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/27/05 23:06 CST:
>
> > What do other LFSers think?
>
> -1 for all the same reasons that I and many others have already
> stated. Additionally, I don't believe that the
soon as I get a chance.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 11/27/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/27/05 23:50 CST:
>
> > If I remember, there is only one BLFS pacakges that needs it
> > sgml-common.
>
> You don't remember well. :-)
>
> At a minimum, and I&#
On 11/27/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disadvantages:
> * It makes the instructions slightly more complex.
> * Causes problems for folks who don't want a package manager.
Actually, we can do what Greg has done. He uses TT_PFX as the DESTDIR
and instead of m
On 11/27/05, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system.
> >
> > They are only required by pacakge main
1.4, 1.5, 1.6 are not upgrades in the exact sense. They are
similar to the glib and gtk where in some sense glib-2.x is an upgrade
to glib-1.2.x, but in reality there are different pacakges.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://
ut what all is
> being installed, then there are many, many ways to get that data.
Yep, and DESTDIR being the easiest and recommended (in the READMEs) way.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listin
ESTDIR=$PM_DEST install
Thanks, I checked his scripts a long time back. Hence the lapse.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/28/05 09:59 CST:
> > On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>If it isn't a trust thing, and you want to figure out what all is
> >>being
On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/28/05 09:59 CST:
> > On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>If it isn't a trust thing, and you want to figure out what all is
> >>being
On 11/28/05, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:59:24AM -0600, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> > I have been using that approach and it is not as easy as that.
> > Sometimes, we need to make sure that the destination dirs exist before
>
f package
management would be fake root. Of course the variable for fake root is
different for different pacakges.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscra
On 11/29/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> > Yep, and DESTDIR being the easiest and recommended (in the READMEs) way.
>
> I can't possibly agree with that. `touch timestamp && [book
> instructions] &&
On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/28/05 09:59 CST:
> > On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>If it isn't a trust thing, and you want to figure out what all is
> >>being
On 11/27/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are multiple advantages that this offers compared to the current
> way of installing directly into the final destination:
Just thought of another advantage of the fake root method. If the
package installation fails for
on with package management.
Yep, I do that. And frankly I found the fake root approach awesome and
understand why most of the distros use it.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http:
On 11/30/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> > I found too many (for my comfort) false positives and false negatives
> > with this method.
>
> Presumably because you were doing other things with the computer at the
> same
On 11/30/05, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> > It will work for Ch 6 only as long as we are installing it inside
> > chroot. But I meant more in terms of using it for package management.
> > The above technique gave me th
Hello:
Finally, I have written a draft hint on installing multiple autotools
version. I would appreciate your comments before I submit the hint.
The hint and attachments are available at
<http://linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/tmp/>.
Regards,
Tushar.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PRO
have not included the details on each
individual package in the hint since it would make it really long. The
installation instructions for specific packages can be found in my
build scripts at <http://linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/>.
Have fun fakerooting:)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[
On 12/10/05, Nico R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> autoconf-2.13-race.patch uses /bin/mktemp, but on my system the mktemp
> binary is in /usr/bin, and current LFS seems to put it there, too.
On my system, it is in /bin. Will change the invocation to mktemp.
Thanks for the report
On 12/11/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 12/11/05 02:08 CST:
> > The instructions in the book for wvstreams apply a patch. This patch
> > patches configure.ac and configure. If the diff for configure.ac is
> > remove
r should trust us the editors".
But I thought that all this has already been discussed before and
after discussion the project leads decided to create a branch for the
changes and then merge the changes back to head after the results were
tested.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nce most of the package
instructions are also in my build scripts.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
at only
> experienced builders do, and not something that you will find
> instructions in LFS/CLFS for.
Not really, there are instructions for folks who are just upgrading
packages. For example,
<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/bzip2.html>.
The "From Scrat
mail-archives/lfs-dev/2005-November/053989.html>
:)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
If a package errors out on a static library check, I
add the corresponding dir to the LDFLAGS and note the dependency. For
shared libs I use readelf.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-d
/ .
One thing that looks strange. libstdc++.la and libsupc++.la both
include references to /tools (for iteration 1 and iteration 2). I
don't install the libtool archives so I am not sure if it is a new
thing.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfr
On 12/26/05, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please comment on this thread with your choice and the reasoning for
> your choice.
I prefer gdbm coz the bdb api keeps changing with every new release.
An added benefit of gdbm is the small number of required dependencies.
--
Tush
Hi:
The subject says it all:) I would like to propose mentioning optional
dependencies for packages that are installed in LFS. Since most of the
packages are never mentioned in BLFS, the dependencies never get
mentioned.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
) spoke out against it pretty strongly.
>
> Yes, I spoke out strongly against the package-user hint.
And the fake root approach too :)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
ke root installation method.
For the really troublesome packages (OpenOffice is one of those),
there is always the install into /opt/ cop-out. Though, *all*
packages can be installed into fakeroot since that is how the distros
do it. It may be a bit convoluted, but it is doable.
--
Tushar Teredes
(used in
nptl).
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 12/31/05, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > Additionally, the libgcc_s.so symlink is not needed. Only the
> > libgcc_s.so.1 is needed so that glibc can dlopen that library (used in
> > nptl).
>
> Used only in nptl t
On 1/1/06, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> > Additionally, the libgcc_s.so symlink is not needed. Only the
> > libgcc_s.so.1 is needed so that glibc can dlopen that library (used in
> > nptl).
>
> Are you sure?
It found th
Though the patch is for 1.2.2 it also applies to 1.2.3.
The installation instructions are:
./configure --prefix=/usr --shared &&
make &&
make install
Should the patch be added to the book?
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratc
fromscratch.org/~alexander/lfs-book/
Alexander:
In the ncurses instructions, you use the INPUT method to force linking
against the widec versions. Wouldn't it be easier to just use symlinks
like we do for ncurses? Or is there a particular reason for choosing
the INPUT method?
--
Tushar T
ng for gm4... no
> checking for gnum4... no
Some of the configure checks are not useful. That is the results don't
get used during compilation and hence won't make a difference in ICA.
There is a similar check in binutils.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:
it would be OK to just add "cc
dummy.c -Wl,--verbose 2>&1 | grep succeeded" and ask folks to check
the output.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
to lfs-dev) I was under the impression that
the udev and hotplug is maintained by the same team and that the
hotplug package is being depracated and udev will be the new hotplug
handler.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.
if I misunderstood the intent.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
rrently building an LFS with Alex's changes and his changes
look good (atleast upto the point that my build has reached).
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom
test it out, but still would
like to see the fun that the bleeding edgers are having :)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
d recompiling.
I wish KDE would break up the meta packages (actually Gentoo has
already done it for them). Gentoo is moving from monolithic KDE to
modular KDE:)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mai
of berkeley db with a
pointer to BLFS's gdbm page.
* The man-db page details on the two approaches to UTF8 - Redhat and
Debian. There should be an explaination on why the Redhat approach was
not considered for the book.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
g to perform a make clean after
builiding the shared lib can cause unwanted results. Gentoo's patch
just brings zlib into compliance with the other packages out there:)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.or
into /usr?
Agreed, it should either be /usr (my preference) or /usr/X11R7 (the
appropriate version).
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.ht
On 1/9/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 01/09/06 12:19 CST:
>
> > * Mention that users can choose the man package instead of man-db
> > (with a pointer to the man home-page/freshmeat-page).
>
> I can see this.
e dependency information gone from the book forever:(
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 1/9/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > Some nitpicks related to the UTF-8 patch:
> > * /usr/bin/zsoelim from groff is overwritten by man-db (three cheers
> > for pkg-user hint:).
>
> Thanks for pointing out tha
On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comments?
>
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002-January/022604.html
:-)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscra
refer BLFS mention
dependencies to zlib, readline, db and perl.
--
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
much everyone is going to install later anyhow. Just a thought.
The executable pcregrep installed by pcre performs the same function
that grep linked against pcre.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/ma
On 1/9/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Building seperate shared and static object files is how most of the
> > builds are performed. Forgetting to perform a make clean after
>
Since we already install additional documentation for other packages,
it would be nice to also install the documentation included with the
kernel:
install -d /usr/share/doc/linux-2.6.15 &&
cp -r Documentation/* /usr/share/doc/linux-2.6.15
What say the group?
--
Tushar Teredesai
On 1/12/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so I'm a bit overzealous creating documentation. However, does
> this borderline obsession?
Depends on whether you actually read the documentation ;-)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lin
with something like the bash
> script from
> http://www.eglug.org/node/1759
Unfortunately it does not support the wonderful man features such as
MAN_PATH and automatic MAN_PATH based on PATH.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http:/
(I have been using
the fakeroot approach for quite sometime so I don't know if this is a
recent thing).
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
ne to submit a bug report to the glibc folks.
IMO, the book should recommend that folks not run plain old ldconfig
but use ldconfig -X so that links are not modified.
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailm
p in production...
I have only been skimming this thread but I *think* he is planning to
upgrade subversion tomorrow, not move over everything to trac
tomorrow. Also I believe he said if we run into problems with trac, we
can hit the panic button and come back to where we are right now.
--
Tusha
On 1/18/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 01/18/06 01:45 CST:
>
> > Like Jermey said, you are expected to click on a link before commenting ;-)
>
> No, folks are expected to provide links to the actual thing, and
> not
braries and interface headers, as well as having them installed in
> /usr for any other package (Evolution, Epiphany, etc) that may also
> utilize them.
>
> It is now doable.
/me scratches one thing off my to do list. Thanks:)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:/
101 - 200 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
