On 10/18/05, Andrew Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > I remember reading on the glibc mailing list that glibc is always
> > backward compatible, i.e. an application compiled for glibc-2.2 should
> > work on a glibc-2.3 system.
> >
>
> Someone said it on a mailing list?
On 10/18/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yep, lot of times. If I remember correctly, my glibc-2.2 -> glibc-2.3
> was like that, and so were many glibc-2.3 upgrades.
I take the first sentence back. I don't remember my glibc-2.2 ->
glibc-2.3 upgrade (though I may have upgraded in
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I remember reading on the glibc mailing list that glibc is always
backward compatible, i.e. an application compiled for glibc-2.2 should
work on a glibc-2.3 system.
Someone said it on a mailing list? Well, then it must be true :)
(sorry for the FUD, I couldn't help it
On 10/18/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, but have you actually tried to upgrade a glibc installation in-situ
> (i.e. on the OS you're currently booted into)? I remember quite clearly
> the effects that had when I accidentally replaced my host's glibc with
> an LFS compiled
On 10/18/05, Jeremy Byron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> >
> > For your current problem, one thing you could do is to use the
> > following to install the new gcc:
> > make DESTDIR=/var/tmp/gcc install
> > This will install everything into a fakeroot /var/tmp/gcc. Now rem
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I remember reading on the glibc mailing list that glibc is always
backward compatible, i.e. an application compiled for glibc-2.2 should
work on a glibc-2.3 system.
Yes, but have you actually tried to upgrade a glibc installation in-situ
(i.e. on the OS you're currentl
On 10/18/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> > As long as you are upgrading the toolchain packages (not downgrading)
> > everything should be ok, especially if they have the same major (and
> > minor version?)
>
> I think glibc is still an exception here, th
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
As long as you are upgrading the toolchain packages (not downgrading)
everything should be ok, especially if they have the same major (and
minor version?)
I think glibc is still an exception here, though I wouldn't like to bet
any amount of money on that! I do, howeve
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
For your current problem, one thing you could do is to use the
following to install the new gcc:
make DESTDIR=/var/tmp/gcc install
This will install everything into a fakeroot /var/tmp/gcc. Now remove
the previous gcc version from the standard directories and then
recur
On 10/18/05, Jeremy Byron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Removing any of the toolchain packages is a bad idea; if you want to
> upgrade or alter their behaviour in any way, you should be rebuilding
> LFS completely from the ground up. (Not quite true, I suppose, if you
> follow BLFS' overwrite of
On 10/18/05, Doug Ronne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lets say you wanted to re-compile and install your copy of gcc and you
> didn't want some of the files lying around, maybe you didn't want some
> ada compiler anymore or something, and you wanted to make sure that
> you didn't have leftovers from
Doug Ronne wrote:
Lets say you wanted to re-compile and install your copy of gcc and you
didn't want some of the files lying around, maybe you didn't want some
ada compiler anymore or something, and you wanted to make sure that
you didn't have leftovers from the previous copy. How would you do
t
Lets say you wanted to re-compile and install your copy of gcc and you
didn't want some of the files lying around, maybe you didn't want some
ada compiler anymore or something, and you wanted to make sure that
you didn't have leftovers from the previous copy. How would you do
that? The make insta
The LFS LiveCD team is is proud to release the 6.2-pre1 version of the LFS
LiveCD. This version follows the current development versions of LFS and BLFS,
to prepare for a later release. The LiveCD features updates to gcc (4.0.2),
glibc (2.3.5), binutils (2.16.1) and many other packages. Sinc
Hello Luca,
Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 6:11:15 PM, you wrote:
LD> In section 6.54.2 there are instructions about
LD> running the commands:
LD> pwconv
LD> grpconv
LD> Did you already do that?
LD> Luca
LD> --
LD> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
LD> FAQ: http://www.linux
In section 6.54.2 there are instructions about
running the commands:
pwconv
grpconv
Did you already do that?
Luca
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 10/17/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 17:04 -0700, Doug Ronne wrote:
> > has anyone compiled the esp ghostscript successfully with gcc4?
>
> Yes, I have. Didn't notice any issues whatsoever. I don't believe
> I had Fortran installed at the time. I used GCC-4
I tried to build module via82xx AC97 into kernel
but the result it's the same
alsaconf do not probe my soundcard
and command:
mpg123 x.mp3
require /dev/dsp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Have you tried building the Alsa drivers into the kernel (not as a module)?
> For what it's worth I don't have a
Ian Armstrong wrote:
I had a look at the 'install-lfs-from-livecd.txt', and it looks quite useful. I haven't tried it yet, but I am in the middle of building version 6.1, and I will try it tomorrow.
I would suggest that it be kept.
Ian.
Check out my first reply to this topic - it can be
On Tue, Oct 18 2005 : 05:47:23, Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/ii
>
>I have seen several people atempt to use this hint and are having some
>problems with it. somthing goes wrong with the setenv.sh. I am
>wondering if somthing needs to b
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 07:38 -0600, Peter B. Steiger wrote:
> Did you run make check, and did it pass all tests? Did you specify any
> build options other than prefix in the configure for the app or the data
> engine?
Here is the configure options for Evolution Data Server:
./configure --prefix=
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:05:24PM +, Cliff McDiarmid wrote:
>
> CONFIG_IP_NF_NAT=y
> CONFIG_IP_NF_NAT_NEEDED=y
> # CONFIG_IP_NF_TARGET_MASQUERADE is not set
Is masquerading needed? Are you using private IP's behind the NAT?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operat
Hi
Following the firewall setup in BLFS 6.1, I've got a problem at boot time with
'nat' table support. All the options chosen for netfiltering are built into
the kernel, i.e. I'm not loading any modules and I've disabled the loading of
modules at the beginning of the itables start-up script.
Hi all
I have some problems with shadow package. The package compiles without
errors but passwd doesn't ask for password. It looks like it does
nothing. The same problem is with login.
How can i find the solution to correct this problem
Regards
Jacek Herold
--
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:10 +0200, sacarde wrote:
> Hi,
>I have installed dialog, now alsaconf work, but I dont find my soundcard
> via82xx.. (with other distribution, ALSA contain my card !!)
Is the kernel module built? For that chipset, I guess that's the one
under "Device Drivers -> S
Hi,
today, I reboot LFS-system and I find
no eth0 found
no modules are loades
when I run:
modprobe -l
result nothing
but modules are in the same place... /lib/modules/kernel.../ecc
what I wrong ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s.
for first problem I found I have not udev started i
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:10 -0600, Peter B. Steiger wrote:
> Has anyone installed Evolution 2.4.1, and does it work OK for you? This
> weekend I yanked out my Gnome install tree (yet again) and rebuilt it
> with the latest 2.12.1 sources, followed by another fresh install of
> Evolution. Just lik
Tom wrote:
> How do I correctly move the root partition to another partition? Im also
> want to move /usr /var as well and probably /home
>
>
I've not tried this, but I think it should work.
Boot using something like this grub line:
kernel (hd0,5)/boot/lfskernel-1.2.3 root=/dev/hda4 init=/bin/
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jeremy Byron wrote:
David Lockwood wrote:
Lastly, for the latest ATI driver (now fglrx_6_8_0-8.18.6-1.i386.rpm)
I would really like to use the latest driver but the patches don't apply
properly to this version. I'm not using a SMP machine/kernel and I'm not
using a VIA-AM
Hi,
I do this procedure quite often.
My Linux machine has a partition JUST for building new LFS versions.
Once that is finished, I them move everything over to other partitons.
Having a separate /boot partition is useful. My pc is partitoned thus:
hda1 = /boot(small < 100Mb EXT)
hda2 = s
30 matches
Mail list logo
