Re: LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu

2009-11-16 Thread Simon Geard
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 22:52 -0500, Chris Staub wrote: > On 11/16/2009 10:30 PM, knothea...@gmail.com wrote: > > When i include the line "LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu" in the > > .bashrc and run the command "source ~/.bash_profile" it complains that > > "bash: -lfs-linux-gnu: command not found"

Re: LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu

2009-11-16 Thread Chris Staub
On 11/16/2009 10:30 PM, knothea...@gmail.com wrote: > When i include the line "LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu" in the > .bashrc and run the command "source ~/.bash_profile" it complains that > "bash: -lfs-linux-gnu: command not found". > > Note I am using 6.5 LFS LiveCD with a VMWare machine, >

LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu

2009-11-16 Thread knothead00
When i include the line "LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu" in the .bashrc and run the command "source ~/.bash_profile" it complains that "bash: -lfs-linux-gnu: command not found". Note I am using 6.5 LFS LiveCD with a VMWare machine, When I drop that line/remove it, the command source ~/.bash_pr

Re: creating my own lfs-cd

2009-11-16 Thread Robert A. Lerche
r-v-r> Now I would like to create my own bootable lfs-cd. My question r-v-r> is: How to do it. I recently built a custom LFS live CD for the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation. I updated the live CD makefiles to reflect LFS 6.4 (plus a few other changes) and added an application program (Pvote

Re: building x86_64 using lsflivecd-86_64

2009-11-16 Thread Aleksandar Kuktin
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:32:03 -0500 >Chris Staub wrote: > > On 11/14/2009 04:54 PM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: > > First off, I understand that in newer versions of LFS book, the > > build process changed, so that GCC and binutils are built together. > > I still use the old method, in which binutils

Re: building x86_64 using lsflivecd-86_64

2009-11-16 Thread Chris Staub
On 11/14/2009 04:54 PM, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: > First off, I understand that in newer versions of LFS book, the build > process changed, so that GCC and binutils are built together. I still > use the old method, in which binutils and GCC are build separately. > This is reflected in this e-mail,