On 3/2/07, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone confirm that bison is needed to build bash-3.1 in chap5
> of Stable 6.2?
>
> Someone just mentioned to me that bash-3.1 needed yacc.
>
> The host system requirements in 6.2 doesn't mention bison, and the
> development book, does
Can someone confirm that bison is needed to build bash-3.1 in chap5
of Stable 6.2?
Someone just mentioned to me that bash-3.1 needed yacc.
The host system requirements in 6.2 doesn't mention bison, and the
development book, does.
Sincerely,
William
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/li
On 3/2/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
>> /usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
>
> Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fe
On Feb 14, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Arden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> also glibc-2.5 wants to replace the linux-header file
>> /usr/include/scsi/sg.h with it's own.
>
> Should we be addressing this? I noticed that in Fedora they remove the
> scsi directory from t
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:48:18AM -0800, Thomas Tutone wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Any suggestions on how to proceed short of
> > > building a 2.6.16.27 kernel for the host?
> >
> > Don't do that. Please. Adrian Bunk is maintaining
> > 2.6.16 at the
> > moment, if you are going to stay with 2.6.1
On 3/2/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 02 March 2007 11:49, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> > The only difficulty with JHALFS is if you want to build ALMOST what's in
> > the book. Like, for instance, I don't want the old sysvinit or Berk's
> > DB or Man-db or Syslog, but all th
On 3/2/07, Thomas Tutone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a Pentium III. (It's an old Dell C600 laptop,
> but it works great - Slackware runs like a champ on
> it.)
Well, my main box was a PIII until very recently. I think I had one
real failure that last time I ran the glibc-2.3.6 testsuite o
--- Thomas Tutone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Jim. When you booted from the 2.6.16.27
> kernel, did you then rebuild the temporary system,
> or did you (as Ken Moffat suggests) simply keep the
> existing temporary system, chroot in, and resume
> with building glibc?
IIRC, I rebuilt everyt
--- Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Thomas Tutone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > OK. Building glibc again using a 2.6.16 kernel,
> but
> > not rebuilding the temporary system, I now get the
> > following errors:
> >
> > make[2]: [/sources/glibc-2-build/posix/annexc.out
On 3/2/07, Thomas Tutone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK. Building glibc again using a 2.6.16 kernel, but
> not rebuilding the temporary system, I now get the
> following errors:
>
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-2-build/posix/annexc.out]
> Error 1 (ignored)
> make[2]: ***
> [/sources/glibc-2-build/n
On 3/2/07, John Rodenbiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Colin Kemp wrote:
> >>
> > next time remember that it did say to put all the sources in the
> > source dir at the beginning of chapter 3
>
> Actually, it says "Downloaded packages and patches will need to be
> store
John Rodenbiker wrote:
> Actually, it says "Downloaded packages and patches will need to be
> stored somewhere that is conveniently available throughout the entire
> build." It goes on to say that a working directory will also be
> required and that $LFS/sources can work for both. The text does
On Mar 1, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Colin Kemp wrote:
>>
> next time remember that it did say to put all the sources in the
> source dir at the beginning of chapter 3
Actually, it says "Downloaded packages and patches will need to be
stored somewhere that is conveniently available throughout the entire
--- JIM CAMERON wrote:
[snip]
> It's true that I had test failures under my host
> kernel, and they went away when I booted from a
> 2.6.16.27 kernel. I'm not sufficiently familiar with
> the whole LFS thing to say whether they're
> significant
> enough to worry about; I thought it better to be
TheOldFellow wrote:
> The only difficulty with JHALFS is if you want to build ALMOST what's in
> the book. Like, for instance, I don't want the old sysvinit or Berk's
> DB or Man-db or Syslog, but all the rest please. Now JHALFS isn't so good.
That's a fair point. Although I do believe you can e
I'm now doing BLFS 6.2.0 stable and just put up a firewall.
On boot it complains about missing table "nat", I think
I missed that in my kernel, but it also complains about
missing tcp-syncookies in /proc/sys/net/ipv4 that's echoed
to 0 in the personal firewall script. There's only a syn_retry
or s
Alan Lord wrote:
> Tijnema ! wrote:
>> So if you start creating a bash file that works for most of the
>> packages, with su/suo, you can copy that in every package to be
>> automated, and edit it for specific apps that require other configure
>> options.
>
> This is a BAD idea. This was simila
--- Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:54:47PM -0800, Thomas
> Tutone wrote:
> >
> > I get errors running the glibc-2.3.6 testsuite in
> > section 6.9 of Version 6.2 of the LFS book:
> >
> [snip a series of nptl failures, version-check
> showing a recent
> kernel
Tijnema ! wrote:
> I build my whole LFS/BLFS system as root, nothing happpened, but as all
> people aleady explained here, there is a security risk.
> There are already some tools like JHALFS, but they don't work very well.
What makes you say that? The tool works very well in my opinion. I can
Hi there.
--- Thomas Tutone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get errors running the glibc-2.3.6 testsuite in
> section 6.9 of Version 6.2 of the LFS book:
> I'm running Slackware 11.0 with a custom recent
> kernel on the host system.
> Looking through the archives, I came across this:
...
> 1.
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:54:47PM -0800, Thomas Tutone wrote:
>
> I get errors running the glibc-2.3.6 testsuite in
> section 6.9 of Version 6.2 of the LFS book:
>
[snip a series of nptl failures, version-check showing a recent
kernel, and relevant archive postings ]
>
> So, this suggests that
21 matches
Mail list logo
