On 3/2/2014 4:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
> LFS Version 7.5.
> [snip]
I would like to say that it pleases me that the LFS community is as
active as it is, and congratulations on another release of this fine
product. LFS is as a
stosss wrote these words on 02/06/13 19:09 CST:
> Thank you LFS Dev team!
>
> I haven't done an LFS system in a long time. I am going through book
> now. I was just thinking there is a lot of hard work doing this book
> and testing new software to make improvements and use new software for
> LFS.
Stephen Bryant wrote these words on 01/29/13 16:53 CST:
> Don't worry, this will be my last message on this particular topic
> here, unless it gets a reply.
Well I've enjoyed reading about your adventures in what looks like a major
PIA to me. I could never have a system that was just a bunch of sy
CC'd to BLFS-Dev, follow-ups should be made there, as this is now a -dev issue
On 1/17/2013 2:55 PM, Armin K. wrote:
> Try:
>
> glib-compile-schemas-2.0 /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas
>
> and re-run make check
Thanks for the quick reply. I ran the command
'glib-compile-schemas /usr/share/glib-2.0/sc
JIA Pei wrote these words on 12/16/12 05:55 CST:
> Hi, all:
>
> 1) From
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html,
> binutils pass 1 requires a patch, why?
>
> 2) Since I'm trying to use the most recent package, say binutils-2.23.1,
> instead of binutils-2.22
Feuerbacher, Alan wrote these words on 08/24/12 17:23 CST:
> Bruce wrote:
>
>> Linux looks in /lib and /usr/lib by default. LD_LIBRARY_PATH just says
>> to add that to the search path. /etc/ld.so.conf can also add
>> directories to be searched.
>
> So looking in /lib and /usr/lib is hardwired?
Lewis Pike wrote these words on 08/21/12 17:02 CST:
> In section 6.7.1 of LFS 7.1 I installed the headers for linux-3.2.6.
> By the time I made to actually building the kernel proper I grabbed
> linux-3.2.27 from kernel.org.
This is perfectly fine. You can always upgrade the kernel proper. However
On 9/29/2011 1:15 PM, Jacob Alifrangis wrote:
> I haven’t seen any part of jhlfs that documents anything in a 1,2,3 fashion,
> only that there is a readme that is mangled and very un-clear, contains no
> instructions and has, it seems no way to indicate where to get required
> packages and / or
robert wrote these words on 01/20/11 15:32 CST:
> /etc/sysconfig/network-devices/ifconfig.eth0/ipv4 NOW READS:
> ONBOOT=yes
> SERVICE=ipv4-static
> IP=192.168.1.100
> GATEWAY=192.168.1.254
> PREFIX=24
> BROADCAST=192.168.1.255
What are you using for your gateway hardware? I noticed you changed the
Glendon Blount wrote these words on 01/09/11 16:24 CST:
> In LFS 6.7 it talks of retesting Autoconf after installing Automake how is
> this done? Do I reinstall Autoconf? Is the retest important?
You would install Automake and then untar the autoconf tarball, run configure
and make, and then run '
xinglp wrote these words on 01/04/11 10:49 CST:
> It seems that man-db depends on xz-utils.
>
> The configure out puts below
>
> 111 checking for pic... pic
> 112 checking for gzip... gzip
> 113 checking for compress... no
> 114 checking for bzip2... bzip2
> 115 checking for xz... xz
> 116 checki
robert wrote these words on 12/12/10 16:22 CST:
> Any precautionary notes before I light out for the wilderness?
Why reinvent the wheel? An automated system to build LFS already exists!
Instead of simply doing boring work adding together the commands, why
not use your new Linux system to do someth
robert wrote these words on 12/12/10 12:43 CST:
> Suddenly, I suspected that to be the problem ... maybe
> not. In any case, I've one terminal and only one tab ... chroot.
> Things seem to be going swimmingly ... until this -npl -Npl moment.
And just for completeness, you still have the syntax
Juan Antonio Moreno Carmona wrote these words on 12/08/10 10:24 CST:
> Hi.
> libffi appears in the python's page like an optional dependency but the url
> points to the web page of libffi, http://sourceware.org/libffi/. Like libffi
> are in blfs some time ago, that url should points to the libffi p
Mike Hollis wrote these words on 11/25/10 09:33 CST:
> You are in the wrong directory . You are trying to apply a glibc patch
> to the Linux kernel. You should be in the unpacked glibc directory.
> I don't think you understand the fundamentals of the install procedure
> and a grasp of this is ne
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 11/15/10 15:09 CST:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:17:08PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> William Immendorf wrote these words on 11/15/10 13:21 CST:
>>
>>> Well, I personally think that x264 should go into the book mainly
>>> becau
William Immendorf wrote these words on 11/15/10 13:21 CST:
> Well, I personally think that x264 should go into the book mainly
> because if the book says that a dep is required or recommended, it has
> to be in the book.
Yes, this is typically the policy. Which package recommends x264?
> This i
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 11/15/10 11:24 CST:
> The problem with x264 is that it's always a snapshot. For people
> using today's ffmpeg snapshot, today's x264 probably works. For
> people using a released version of ffmpeg, who knows. That's why
> I've mentioned a specific "known to work"
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 11/04/10 14:41 CST:
> I had forgotten, while testing Python-2.7 (and eventually deciding
> to stay with 2.6 for the moment), that there is a newer 2.6 release.
> With most after-LFS packages I can work out what to rebuild if I
> have to upgrade, but for python I don
Brett Mahar wrote these words on 10/26/10 19:04 CST:
> Section 5.3 contradicts 5.5.
> Hence confusion.
Only if you read too much into things. Think about it. The instructions
say to unpack the package tarball. If one cannot determine that the
package tarball means the package listed in the header
Neal Murphy wrote these words on 10/26/10 10:32 CST:
> I really don't understand the resistance to changing
> "GCC now requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC packages. As these packages
> may not be included in your host distribution, they will be built
> with GCC:"
> to something like
> "
On 10/26/2010 7:09 AM, Brett Mahar wrote:
> I agree, there is no way that I could figure that out from reading the
> book.
Then you failed to read Section 5.3 "General Compilation Instructions".
This has been discussed many times, and it has always been determined
that we expect readers to actuall
brown wrap wrote these words on 02/27/10 12:42 CST:
> I did search the archives for discussion on net-tools and didn't find any
> recent articles.
Everything you needed is discussed in this thread. Simply use the CVS
version on the Berlios server. No patches needed. Works great.
--
Randy
rmlsc
brown wrap wrote:
> OK, I took the suggestion of make both [snip]
Perhaps you could learn what all this is about by reading
http://www.linux-usb.org/USB-guide/c122.html
HTH.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/18/10 10:07 CST:
> Sebastien Fievet wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> i run a LFS 6.2 system for quite some time now, and i 'd like to upgrade it.
>> As a matter of (natural?) laziness, i was wondering wether i could re-use
>> the static tools chain from my current 6.
stosss wrote these words on 02/16/10 14:18 CST:
> This is why I would really like to see the book devs go to posting a
> snapshot only when there has been a change to the book.
You are making a mountain from a molehill. If you are so worried if
there has been changes, just look at the daily render
bchaf...@programmer.net wrote these words on 02/11/10 08:13 CST:
> This command: patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-4.4.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch
>
> fails with the following error:
>
> patching file gcc/gcc.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 6370.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file gcc/gcc.c.rej
You said y
Mikie wrote these words on 01/16/10 11:19 CST:
> I will have 100 PC's booting PXE from an NFS root.
> That is the goal.
>
> The reason is so I won't have to maintain 100 PC's but rather an image
> on one server.
> I am trying to understand what part of the file system should be on the
> image (und
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/09/10 18:32 CST:
> Note: I don't remember why I removed this section several years ago,
> but I just added it back in tonight.
Wasn't it because the same exact page was ported over to LFS, and now
that you've included it in BLFS as well, it seems redundant.
T
Mikie wrote these words on 01/09/10 11:03 CST:
> [K. Mike Bradley] I have built LFS twice successfully.
> I don't think I learned a damned thing each time.
Then obviously LFS is not for you.
> I am a professional trainer and I know how to teach better than most
> trainers.
> LFS fails to teach.
Mikie wrote these words on 01/03/10 16:07 CST:
> I may be new to Linux (BTW: I have built LFS two other times) but I do know
> how to teach and reach people.
> This is a separate skill set independent of the subject matter one is trying
> to teach.
>
> I still think the book is for advanced peop
pieter blomme wrote these words on 11/17/09 10:25 CST:
> pie...@pluto:/mnt/lfs$ sudo chroot "$LFS" /tools/bin/env -i \
>> HOME=/root TERM="$TERM" PS1='\u:\w\$ ' \
>> PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/tools/bin \
>> /tools/bin/bash --login +h
> chroot: cannot run command `/tools/bin/e
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/29/09 10:58 CST:
> Justin,
>Trim your posts to the minimum needed to reply.
To be honest, I've not been responding to lfs-support recently because
of all the top-posting and non-trimming going on there. Both bug the
sh*t out of me. Non-trimming because I hav
CC'ing BLFS-Support as this thread is more appropriate there, please
respond in that forum. Thanks.
Tobias Gasser wrote these words on 07/25/09 18:13 CST:
> mod_ruby-1.3.0 states "supported ruby 1.9 experimentally"
I don't use Ruby so I cannot help any. However, what did Google spit
out? I'm tryi
CC'ing BLFS-Dev because that is where this discussion now belongs.
Please respond there.
Mike McCarty wrote these words on 07/21/09 14:17 CST:
> Thanks for the replies, Bruce and Randy. I am not complaining,
> merely observing. I did offer to do some help with the dev
> team, if nothing else then
Mike McCarty wrote these words on 07/21/09 12:19 CST:
> However, so far I haven't seen a coherent LFS + BLFS since 6.3.
> I didn't build BLFS yet, because I was waiting for a coherent
> 6.4 mate BLFS.
You may wait a long time. :-) We have very few contributors with
any spare time right now.
>
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/13/09 17:33 CST:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Angel Tsankov
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Does the order of directories in /etc/ld.so.conf matter?
>
> Yes. Libraries will match from the first directory they're found from
> /etc/ld.so.conf then /usr/lib and
Jeremy Henty wrote these words on 02/27/09 18:18 CST:
> So, since creating an LFS system only requires building existing
> software, why does it include the auto-tools? Could we not move them
> to BLFS? What am I missing here?
The 600 previous discussions about the same subject. Please re
Jeremy Henty wrote:
> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/mpfr-2.3.2.tar.bz2 returns "404 Not
> Found". Shouldn't the online Errata for LFS 6.4 point this out, just
> as it already does for the Glibc snapshot?
>
> BTW, I registered on the LFS wiki and logged in OK, but I can't create
> a ticket
ForrestG wrote these words on 02/14/09 15:11 CST:
> I dont understanding the chapter 5.6 in LFS book 6.4.
> First I dont have any Linux-2.6.27 API Headers tar archive, that a can
> extract.
> Second if I try "make mrproper" in $LFS/sources make wrote this.
> make: *** No rule to make target `mrpr
jaredp wrote these words on 02/12/09 15:39 CST:
> Thanks Randy and Ag.
>
> Randy, I understand the patience thing. I know how it is to field
> questions like this.
>
> I thought I was diligently following the book, but the answer must be
> that something was missed section 4.2.
>
> If I need t
jaredp wrote these words on 02/12/09 14:58 CST:
> I appreciate the feedback.
>
> I didn't mess up the first package. The book never distinctly says to
> cd into ../binutils-2.18 and run configure
> It's not even implicitly stated.
Nobody said it should, I know I didn't and I know the book
doesn'
jaredp wrote these words on 02/12/09 13:48 CST:
> Received a permission error while following the Binutils compilation from ch5:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.4/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html
>
> The problem seems similar to the thread
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-
Ryan Isaacs wrote:
> I thought modules were just some
> compiled code, which likely sits as a binary file on the disk
> somewhere. They are loaded into RAM when needed (user using insmod, or
> system doing it automatically). So, how does the ramdisk fit in?
This ought to turn the light bulb on for
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote:
>> I had a user in IRC insisting they were looking at LFS 6.4, specifically
>> the pdf -
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/stable/LFS-BOOK-6.4.pdf.bz2
>> - and that it mentioned $LFS_TGT in that command. I tried checking the
>> pdf myse
Mike Vanderlaan wrote:
> At the end of gcc compile pass1, the book states to link libgcc_eh.a by
> linking to libgcc.a for pass1 with the command:
>
> ln -vs libgcc.a `$LFS_TGT-gcc -print-libgcc-file-name | \
>
> sed 's/libgcc/&_eh/'`
>
> Am I missing something?
I don't know which book you're
Scott wrote:
> Then, RTFM.
:-)
I meant to respond yesterday when I read the original mail,
but forgot. This issue is covered in a FAQ
( http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#wrong-ln-s-command )
so typically I will only respond with:
man ln
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
Jack Stone wrote:
> Sorry I should have made that clear. Yes the device does have an entry
> in fstab. So far it is always given the same name (sde), but I don't
> know if I can rely on that.
Just out of curiosity (as I'm not sure I can help you with
this issue), could you show the entry in /
Jack Stone wrote:
> As the udev_retry script is after the mountfs script I tried adding an
> extra_mount script after udev_retry which does a "mount -a".
The 'mount -a' command will only mount those filesystems
identified in /etc/fstab. And typically you would not put
a USB device in /etc/fstab.
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM, William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello Everybody,
>>
>> Is there any way to get some of the archives from the mailing
>> lists? They are all error 403 right now.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think Gerard disabled the arch
Juan A. Moreno wrote these words on 11/03/08 12:52 CST:
> What man pages are better?
I would prefer to use the Shadow man pages. IMO, it's better to use
man pages from the native package rather than the generic ones from
the man-pages package.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld vers
Rob Thornton wrote:
> There is a bug in GCC 4.3.2 which will cause tests to fail if the system
> has a stack size of 8MB or less in limits-structnest.c
> (gcc.c-torture/compile/compile.exp for example). The devs are aware of
> the problem and are working on a fix but may be worth mentioning in
Amitav Mohanty wrote:
> I am trying to install LFS 6.2
Why are you trying to install such an ancient version of LFS
on such a modern machine?
Please try 6.3, or even better, try the Development version
of the book which is due for release. There may be some issues
with Development right now as t
Trent Shea wrote:
> On Sunday 12 October 2008 14:11:49 Trent Shea wrote:
>> I wouldn't want to start altering instructions to reflect possible
>> scenarios though.
>
> Well, still... It feels odd that we would be worried about the system
> crashing at this point (ie. the last thing we are doing:)
[cc'ing to LFS-Dev]
Wolfgang Messingschlager wrote:
> I suggest before issuing within grub
> setup (hd0)
> the file /boot/grub/menu.lst should be created. This is much safer,
> because it can happen that the system crashes between overwriting the
> MBT and creating /boot/grub/menu.lst.
>
>
Trent Shea wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:33 CST:
> The only patch I saw was related to texinfo, and it applied all three
> times. Was there another patch?
Yes. And my apologies. Somehow, I've neglected to get this into the
book, which I'll fix right now. In the meantime, download and apply
th
Trent Shea wrote:
> On Saturday 11 October 2008 22:39:07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> And your errors are?
>
> < snip from logs >
> Running /root/binutils-2.18/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ...
> FAIL: shared (non PIC)
> FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so)
Resending using an email address that works with this list.
A shame my LFS addy won't work.
:-(
Original Message
Subject: Re: gcc-4.3.2 in SVN-20081011
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:17:45 -0500
From: Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LFS Support
References: <[E
Philippe Delavalade wrote these words on 09/16/08 06:57 CST:
> I have now a question about mktemp-1.5 ; in the book (svn-20080711 version)
> this package is not installed anywhere ; did I miss it or something else
> hapenned ?
I believe that we don't install that package any longer as the mktemp
b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your first email described you as a UNIX administrator.
> Everyone has a few problems, but this is turning out to
> us administrating your whole LFS build through Chapter 5.
> This is something I see all the time in the #lfs-support channel.
> I and a few others watching
satish patel wrote:
> I have completed GCC Installation but what about c++ it is not in LFS book,
> I am doing this step from LFS book ...step by step.
I suppose you didn't understand the message Ken was trying to
get across to you about top-posting. Yes, it was sarcastic,
but then it was supposed
Scott Castaline wrote these words on 08/11/08 16:27 CST:
> I've been working under the assumption that prior to unpacking a
> packages tarball that you create a directory using the package name
> -build ie: glibc-build. Then change to the build directory to unpack the
> tarball,
No.
As the bo
Eric Stout wrote these words on 03/17/08 11:25 CST:
> They also use the 386 cpu on the space shuttle because they know the code
> base inside and out, and it's incredibly pysically stable.
Yes, they use the 386 CPU on the shuttle, but not for the reasons
you state.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips
Matthias Feichtinger wrote these words on 12/06/07 04:42 CST:
>
> Right.
> But! If the question is asked again and again? Isn't that a hint for
> improvement?
As I answered before, "I suppose". It just seems weird to redundantly
give information out because we feel that folks won't read the book,
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 12/05/07 18:42 CST:
>
> That's a pretty good idea. It also might be nice if we placed a
> pointer back to the introduction text before the first package
> (binutils-pass1) since most people probably skim that section (or skip
> it entirely) and miss a crucial piec
Rob Burris wrote these words on 11/21/07 11:34 CST:
[cc'd to BLFS-Support]
> I made it through LFS 6.2 and I'm now working on BLFS. Trying to compile
> TCL 8.4.13 and I get the following error message.
>
> gcc -c -O2 -DTCL_DBGX= -fPIC -I/tcl8.4.13/unix/../generic
> ...
> from /tcl8.4.13/unix/
Richard Caldwell wrote these words on 09/14/07 20:51 CST:
> is it possible to login remotely via network and build LFS?
Yes, I've done it a gazillion times.
> It looks to me like it should be possible up until section 6.4
> 'entering chroot'. Have I got this completely wrong?
I chroot remo
Nicolas FRANCOIS wrote these words on 09/09/07 18:54 CST:
> It seems that ncurses (5.6) looks for gpm while configuring. So if the
> host system has it installed, the configure script fails.
>
> The solution is simple : pass "--without-gpm" to configure. Is it worth
> mentioning in the book (6.3)
Alan wrote:
> -bash-3.1$ locate libpam | tail
> /usr/lib/libpam.la
> /usr/lib/libpam.so
> /usr/lib/libpamc.la
> /usr/lib/libpamc.so
> /usr/lib/libpam_misc.la
> /usr/lib/libpam_misc.so
Seems to me that libpam.so is just a symlink to the actual library,
which doesn't show up in your locate commmand
Burt Alcantara wrote these words on 08/18/07 09:52 CST:
> I've tried running the patch from different directories but always get
> the same result:
Well, apparently you haven't yet tried to be in the root of an
unpacked source tarball directory. :-)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/lfs/sources$ patch
Trent Shea wrote these words on 08/17/07 17:49 CST:
> It would be nice to see if anyone who
> didn't encounter errors in the glibc-tests has SBU times that reflect those
> listed in the book.
This may be much more than you need, but filter out what you do need.
BTW - st*.ts files are start and
Trent Shea wrote these words on 08/17/07 16:00 CST:
> I'm having trouble with glibc-tests. The book says that they should take
> around 22 SBU; I'm completing them in under 4. I'm not getting any unexpected
> Errors a "grep Error glibc-2.5-tests" produces:
>
> [snip]
> glibc-2.5-tests time: 879.
rblythe wrote these words on 08/16/07 16:56 CST:
> [snip 53 lines of stuff having nothing to do with the reply]
>
> Please do not top post
Please trim the quoted material to what is relevant.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable r
Clyde Forrester wrote these words on 08/16/07 17:53 CST:
> One point, it would appear, is that if my working directory is an
> isolated subdirectory, and if it's something experimental which goes
> bad, then I can simply step out of the isolated working directory and
> nuke it from orbit.
Corr
lists wrote these words on 08/17/07 17:35 CST:
> true, but typing ./configure is easier than typing
> /path/to/source/tree/configure
I suppose. But my reply wasn't about what was easiest. It was to
point out that the post I replied to was not accurate.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GN
Clyde Forrester wrote these words on 08/16/07 17:42 CST:
> So... (bottom posting, of course)... (sorry if I'm being dense)...
> normally I would be in the newly unpacked foo.1.2.3 directory, and doing
> my configure, make, make install? Whereas in chapter 5, by creating a
> foo-build directory
Tijnema wrote these words on 08/16/07 17:33 CST:
> Not with the instructions "copy-and-pasted" from the book ;)
>
> And btw, it will give a lot of trouble :P it will overwrite each
> makefile, log files and build files from the previous package etc,
> ending up with one big directory of 1000s of
Tijnema wrote these words on 08/16/07 17:25 CST:
> Well, you need to be in that directory to be able to run configure,
> make and all other instructions ;-)
Technically, that is not true. With most packages (properly packaged
ones anyway), you can run the build commands from anywhere you like.
Yo
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/25/07 19:22 CST:
> Whoops. No, that's correct. When I was testing out the command, the
> first output is what I had. But that's only because I usually don't
> install the /usr/local hierarchy until it's needed. Checking again
> now, your output is correct and
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/25/07 19:10 CST:
> The obvious question that everyone will have is: what happens if you
> simply run the commands that are in the book, instead of deviating?
>
> This would be a good indication of the overall health of your build,
> *THEN
David Murphy wrote these words on 04/25/07 18:56 CST:
> The book asks you to run:
>grep -B2 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log
>
> But I have an extra line in that list. Running the command (with -B3
> instead) produces:
The obvious question that everyone will have is: what happens if you
simply run
Jeff wrote these words on 04/09/07 15:02 CST:
> /usr/bin/ld:/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.0.3/../../../libncurses.so: file
> fo rmat not recognized; treating as linker script
> /usr/bin/ld:/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.0.3/../../../libncurses.so:1:
> parse error
> collect2: ld returned 1 e
Tijnema ! wrote these words on 03/31/07 15:42 CST:
> So i read the part of stripping, and i saw this message:
> Take care not to use --strip-unneeded on the libraries. The static
> ones would be destroyed and the toolchain packages would need to be
> built all over again.
> But what about running
Jorge Almeida wrote these words on 03/25/07 07:29 CST:
> If you're sure it doesn't hurt, I'll install it. I usually avoid
> development versions, unless there is a good reason to try it.
I'm not sure of anything! :-) However, it is the latest 'stable'
version provided by Sun. It just happens to
Jorge Almeida wrote these words on 03/25/07 06:42 CST:
> Please, please somebody tell me what to do to download
> jdk-1_5_0_10-linux-i586.bin !
http://java.sun.com/products/archive/
However, it wouldn't hurt to update to the latest version (update 11).
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU
sizo nsibande wrote these words on 03/22/07 09:32 CST:
> checking db_185.h usability... no
> checking db_185.h presence... no
> checking for db_185.h... no
Are you certain you installed the Berkeley-DB package?
I'm not. If you did, something went wrong with your installation.
Note from my logs:
Jorge Almeida wrote these words on 03/21/07 09:42 CST:
> make fails with freeglut-2.4.0. (Current stable version of the BLFS
> book.)
>
> Is Mesa required? I didn't install it, since I use a Nvidia driver.
Yes, GL libraries would be required. You could always install just
the GLUT library from th
Colin Dean wrote these words on 02/10/07 15:53 CST:
> Ideas/help/anything welcome.
In times like those, I usually rely on my friends Jim Beam, Johnny
Walker and Jack Daniels. Oh yeah, I sometimes get counsel from my
dear Old Grand Dad.
:-) Wish I could help, but everything would be guesswork.
Athena P wrote these words on 02/10/07 13:18 CST:
> Surely specifying the CPU architecture is still worth while. For example
> using this string must give speed improvements.
>
> "-O3 -march=prescott -march=prescott -mtune=prescott -mmmx -msse -
> msse2 -msse3 -m3dnow -pipe -mfpmath=sse" -fomit-
Athena P wrote these words on 02/10/07 13:04 CST:
> And, finally, in terms of pure performance (speed) is all this
> optimization really worth the effort?
IMHO, a definite no. Not only will you not see the performance
gain in day-to-day use of the system, you'll end up having issues
that you will
Zeb Packard wrote these words on 01/21/07 17:29 CST:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# cat /etc/passwd | grep readline
Perhaps just:
grep readline /etc/passwd
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i6
Nadav Vinik wrote these words on 01/20/07 14:23 CST:
> [snip the 12 top-posted lines and over 200 lines of previous comments]
This conversation is really good, and will be great for the archives,
however, it would be nice if you guys could stop top-posting and also
start trimming the original mes
Amadeus wrote these words on 01/19/07 10:41 CST:
> I was intending to try to build gnome 2.16 just following the above
> instructions for 2.14 and hoping not to come across any snags.
I forgot to mention that 2.16 will require updated versions of at
least Glib and GTK+. Perhaps other packages as
Amadeus wrote these words on 01/19/07 10:41 CST:
> I was intending to try to build gnome 2.16 just following the above
> instructions for 2.14 and hoping not to come across any snags.
You will come across snags in dependencies, and missing packages
(2.16 has dropped some and added new packages).
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/18/07 16:45 CST:
> In my experience, CUPS can be kind of dodgy. So, I wouldn't be
> surprised if CUPS is just failing to access your printer completely
> but lying to you about it.
After reading the original, then Ken's reply and now Dan's, we all
seem to thi
blfsuser wrote these words on 01/15/07 15:32 CST:
> is this to upgrade version 4.0.18 to version 4.0.18.1 ? If so its no
> good since that's what I've already got.
I have no idea. I've never messed with anything other than 4.0.15.
LFS SVN uses 4.0.17, so it must be fairly stable.
> Another thou
Aleksandar Adam wrote these words on 01/15/07 14:48 CST:
> 1. Where do I report typographical errors in the LFS book?
Preferably in the LFS Trac system.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/report/1
Unfortunately, I don't remember what all it takes to get set
up to enter bugs. If you're famili
Leo Peschier wrote these words on 01/14/07 16:59 CST:
> These are the versions available. [snip]
Thanks for the heads-up Leo. I tagged the existing ticket as a
version increment to 1.0. I cc'd Alex on this message in hopes that
he'll comment on recent versions of iso-codes. It may be that he's
us
Lupine wrote these words on 01/11/07 18:39 CST:
> Thanks for the reply though, at least I know it should be working ;-)
Actually, no. I cannot speak for GNOME-2.16.x. I do know that there
are significant changes to both the GNOME packages that need to be
installed and the support packages used (g
Debasree Mallick wrote these words on 01/10/07 19:27 CST:
> Hello
>I am facing the following problem in building GCC 4.0.3 . If
> any body know the solution, then please help me.
A brief look at the error messages make me think that perhaps you
didn't create and enter the 'build' dire
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
