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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
--
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
> .
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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):
17 matches
Mail list logo