Re: [lfs-support] Do lfs devs write patches?

2012-04-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
On Apr 9, 2012 11:44 PM, "gmspro" wrote: > > @bruce, > > >>Yes. > > >> -- Bruce > > Yes for what? Yes for 'Or do they copy patches somewhere and store there in that mirror?' or Yes for 'Do some particular lfs devs write these patches? http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/7.1/ ' Look at w

Re: [lfs-support] Do lfs devs write patches?

2012-04-09 Thread gmspro
@bruce, >>Yes. >>   -- Bruce Yes for what? Yes for 'Or do they copy patches somewhere and store there in that mirror?' or Yes for 'Do some particular lfs devs write these patches? http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/7.1/ ' -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support

Re: [lfs-support] Glibc and -march=i486 option

2012-04-09 Thread ante
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > It was added 09/15/07.  See > > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2018 > Thank you. -- ante -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above i

Re: [lfs-support] Do lfs devs write patches?

2012-04-09 Thread Andrew Benton
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:22:57 +0100 gmspro wrote: > Do some particular lfs devs write these patches? > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/7.1/ > > Or do they copy patches somewhere and store there in that mirror? The lfs patches are in a subversion repository. Some of them are written

Re: [lfs-support] Glibc and -march=i486 option

2012-04-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
ante wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> ante wrote: >>> Well, I try to ask it once more. Can anybody explain (or give me a link to >>> relevant discussion) why glibc should be compiled with -march=i486 option? >>> I remember that in LFS 5.0 it was recommended to clear

Re: [lfs-support] Glibc and -march=i486 option

2012-04-09 Thread ante
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > ante wrote: >> Well, I try to ask it once more. Can anybody explain (or give me a link to >> relevant discussion) why glibc should be compiled with -march=i486 option? >> I remember that in LFS 5.0 it was recommended to clear CFLAGS and CXXFLAG

Re: [lfs-support] Glibc and -march=i486 option

2012-04-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
ante wrote: > Well, I try to ask it once more. Can anybody explain (or give me a link to > relevant discussion) why glibc should be compiled with -march=i486 option? > I remember that in LFS 5.0 it was recommended to clear CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS > during compilation; but why it is recommended -march=i

[lfs-support] Glibc and -march=i486 option

2012-04-09 Thread ante
Well, I try to ask it once more. Can anybody explain (or give me a link to relevant discussion) why glibc should be compiled with -march=i486 option? I remember that in LFS 5.0 it was recommended to clear CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS during compilation; but why it is recommended -march=i486 option now? --

Re: [lfs-support] Ncurses compilation during the Temp Tools stage

2012-04-09 Thread Stuart Stegall
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Эмиль Кранц wrote: > Well, here is the snippet of ncurses configure script. All book > instructions were followed to the letter. > Fresh install, host is BLFS-7.0 > ./configure --prefix=/tools --with-shared \ >    --without-debug --without-ada --enable-overwrite > .

Re: [lfs-support] Do lfs devs write patches?

2012-04-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
gmspro wrote: > Do some particular lfs devs write these patches? > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/7.1/ > > Or do they copy patches somewhere and store there in that mirror? Yes. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch

Re: [lfs-support] Udev Symlinks in Xorg

2012-04-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Please post X problems on blfs-support. -- Bruce Esben Stien wrote: > I've made some rules in Udev: > > #Logitech Dinovo Keyboard > SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", ATTRS{bInterfaceClass}=="03", > ATTRS{bInterfaceProtocol}=="01", ENV{ID_CLASS}="kbd", > SYMLINK+="input/keyboard-dinovo" > > #Logitech MX Re

Re: [lfs-support] LFS + Rootkits

2012-04-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
loki wrote: >>> ...and a rootkit was installed. >> A very interesting story. I'm interested how a regular user was able to >> install a rootkit. I realize that you may not know. > > Didn't have the time to analyse that but I presume through privilege > escalation. > Cause this user had direct a

[lfs-support] Udev Symlinks in Xorg

2012-04-09 Thread Esben Stien
I've made some rules in Udev: #Logitech Dinovo Keyboard SUBSYSTEMS=="usb", ATTRS{bInterfaceClass}=="03", ATTRS{bInterfaceProtocol}=="01", ENV{ID_CLASS}="kbd", SYMLINK+="input/keyboard-dinovo" #Logitech MX Revolution Mouse BUS=="usb", KERNEL=="event[0-9]*", SYSFS{idVendor}=="046d", SYSFS{idProd

[lfs-support] Do lfs devs write patches?

2012-04-09 Thread gmspro
Do some particular lfs devs write these patches? http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/7.1/ Or do they copy patches somewhere and store there in that mirror? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the a

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 5.7 (Glibc-2.14.1)

2012-04-09 Thread Firerat
On Apr 9, 2012 3:12 PM, "Sean Hinchee" wrote: > > This is my first time going through LFS, everything went fine (I think) > up until I tried "sudo make" on glibc. I followed the directions Must admit it has been a while since I went through the book, and I use a slightly different approach with p

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 5.7 (Glibc-2.14.1)

2012-04-09 Thread Эмиль Кранц
On 9 April 2012 17:11, Sean Hinchee wrote: > This is my first time going through LFS, everything went fine (I think) > up until I tried "sudo make" on glibc. I followed the directions > verbatim and I have run through the steps from "gcc-4.6.2 - Pass 1" all > the way back up to glibc. Everytime I

[lfs-support] LFS 5.7 (Glibc-2.14.1)

2012-04-09 Thread Sean Hinchee
This is my first time going through LFS, everything went fine (I think) up until I tried "sudo make" on glibc. I followed the directions verbatim and I have run through the steps from "gcc-4.6.2 - Pass 1" all the way back up to glibc. Everytime I run into this (only the last few lines):