I have completed an update to the "More Control Helpers" archive, complete
with a revised build script, more features in the wrapper scripts and a few
more handy scripts. Find
it at this page...
https://www.javacrypt.com/lfs/
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Rob Taylor wrote:
> I have been wor
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 19:52 +, David Brodie wrote:
> plus you need a polkit rules
> file for udisks2, which is written in Javascript format for the latest
> version of Polkit - this is a very simple example:
My *deity*! It's bad enough that some config files are written in XML,
but JavaScrip
>
> It looks like the the issue is specific to the x86 architecture.
> I would ignore it.
>
>
>-- Bruce
>
Will do.
Thank you both.
--
Ron Hartikka
harti...@gmail.com
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: S
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:29:05 +
> From: Hazel Russman
> To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for
> libgmp.la in the wrong place
>
- apols for the delay in resuming.
> > * can you post the output, please, of each of:
>
William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Ron Hartikka wrote:
>
>> I should have said I came across that thread and other threads
>> elsewhere about this error.
>
>
> As far as looking through the gcc-testresults mailing list:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?wm=wrd&form=ex
Thanks William,
I understand you are saying I should be good to go.
What is your platform?
*Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu*
also
*The host is:*
*Ubuntu 13.10 32 bitPentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4200 @ 2.00GHz × 22GiB
memory*
As far as looking through the gcc-testresults mai
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Ron Hartikka wrote:
> I should have said I came across that thread and other threads
> elsewhere about this error.
As far as looking through the gcc-testresults mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?wm=wrd&form=extended&m=all&s=D&ul=%2Fml%2Fgcc-testr
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Ron Hartikka wrote:
> But I didn't find a fix.
> Nor could *I* glean an indication that it's safe for me to ignore.
A huge number of failures indicates a problem.
The specific error regarding AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest as a
Failure would be platform specific.
Hi William,
Thank you.
I should have said I came across that thread and other threads elsewhere
about this error.
But I didn't find a fix.
Nor could *I* glean an indication that it's safe for me to ignore.
Probably my failing.
What did I miss?
Thanks again,
Ron
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:5
