On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote:
>> As I said, I don't think it's unclear. None of the other commands
>> in the
>> book (including the multi-line ones) have the bash prompt there,
>> and as
>> the book says in the "Typography" page, all the stuff in the
On December 1, 2008 02:09:40 am Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Sorry, this sounds like it was my comment... :) What I meant was,
> what Trent says feels like more of a statement about the community's
> attitude than it does a statement about the OP's comments.
Probably a little more credit than I'm due.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Stealth wrote:
>
> now I can move on.
>
When you listed out the steps you had taken, I didn't see any
reference to deleting the source- and build- directories. Maybe
you omitted it from your list, which would be ok for that context.
If not, please re
Chris Staub wrote:
> As I said, I don't think it's unclear. None of the other commands in the
> book (including the multi-line ones) have the bash prompt there, and as
> the book says in the "Typography" page, all the stuff in the command
> blocks is to be *typed* "exactly as seen". But I guess
Stealth wrote:
> On Monday 01 December 2008 04:12:25 pm Chris Staub wrote:
>> Just practice - that's been a frequent issue mentioned in the IRC
>> channel. Apparently a number of users assume the ">" in that
>> command in the book is just the secondary bash prompt, not part
>> of the command. I sup
On Monday 01 December 2008 04:12:25 pm Chris Staub wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > Chris Staub wrote:
> >> You forgot the ">" in the command.
> >
> > Good eye. I knew it was something small like that... :)
> >
> > --
> > JH
>
> Just practice - that's been a frequent issue mentioned in the IRC
>
Chris Staub wrote:
> Just practice - that's been a frequent issue mentioned in the IRC
> channel. Apparently a number of users assume the ">" in that command in
> the book is just the secondary bash prompt, not part of the command. I
> suppose the ">" could be moved to the end of the 1st line or
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote:
>> You forgot the ">" in the command.
>
> Good eye. I knew it was something small like that... :)
>
> --
> JH
Just practice - that's been a frequent issue mentioned in the IRC
channel. Apparently a number of users assume the ">" in that command in
th
Chris Staub wrote:
> You forgot the ">" in the command.
Good eye. I knew it was something small like that... :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Stealth wrote:
> If you are one of those growing tired of my mail don't read it, just
> delete it. Save us both some aggravation. If you really want to
> help and not insult, then read on. Blame Trent for this opening
> paragraph.
>
> I have gone back through the book, 3 times, following it exa
Stealth wrote:
> If you are one of those growing tired of my mail don't read it, just
> delete it. Save us both some aggravation. If you really want to
> help and not insult, then read on. Blame Trent for this opening
> paragraph.
This was unecessary.
> I have arrived at the exact same place a
If you are one of those growing tired of my mail don't read it, just
delete it. Save us both some aggravation. If you really want to
help and not insult, then read on. Blame Trent for this opening
paragraph.
I have gone back through the book, 3 times, following it exactly
with no deviations of
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote:
>
>> One other thing I wonder about, in the find 6.4 book. As I noted before,
>> one of my earlier problems was that libtool was ending up with hardcoded
>> references to /tools/bin/grep, which I corrected by moving grep to be
>> build a little earlier. How
Simon Geard wrote:
> One other thing I wonder about, in the find 6.4 book. As I noted before,
> one of my earlier problems was that libtool was ending up with hardcoded
> references to /tools/bin/grep, which I corrected by moving grep to be
> build a little earlier. However, the 6.4 book has grep
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Trent Shea wrote:
>> Everyone has been amazingly patient with your criticism of the book.
>
> Just for the record, this comment is more about the historical attitude
> of the LFS community, not about the questions raised.
Sorry, this sounds like it was my comment... :) W
Trent Shea wrote:
> On November 30, 2008 10:29:25 pm Stealth wrote:
>> Is there anything on this page (book 6.3 ch 5.2) that needs to be
>> done before going to 5.3 to follow the binutils build instructions?
>
> Everyone has been amazingly patient with your criticism of the book.
Just for the rec
Stealth wrote:
> /tools: symbolic link to '/mnt/lfs/tools'
Looks good then. If you follow everything step by step, you should be
fine. I bet you just forgot to run 'make install' with gcc-pass1 last time.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfro
On Monday 01 December 2008 04:01:22 am Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Stealth wrote:
> > The source directory mentioned above I assume is the
> > binutils-2.17 (which was created when I ran tar -xf on the
> > bin*.bz2 file) and the path is $LFS/sources/binutils-2.17 (this
> > sources directory was create
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 21:46 +1300, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 23:59 +0100, Renaud Marquet wrote:
> > As gcc, glibc and binutils are all built with /tools/bin/gcc it's
> > obvious they contain debug information referencing /tools/...
> >
> > Don't know why bison is, though. Maybe i
Stealth wrote:
> The source directory mentioned above I assume is the binutils-2.17
> (which was created when I ran tar -xf on the bin*.bz2 file) and the
> path is $LFS/sources/binutils-2.17 (this sources directory was
> created back in ch 3). If I follow the 1st cmd listed above that
> would p
On November 30, 2008 11:45:45 pm you wrote:
> Look #$%# I did not ask you to help me. And I am not criticising
> the book. I have read the #$%# book several times it is
> confusing. I followed the book exactly as written and ended up with
> @%#$ up build. If you want to respond like you did then ju
21 matches
Mail list logo
