Marcus Wanner wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I will see if I can dig further.
>
> Marcus
To put it another way, the actual running system should be adequate
to build 6.5, it's just the sources (and the broken JHALFS) which
have to be replaced.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main
On 9/10/2009 11:16 PM, Shawn Eary wrote:
> Updating the Live CD to use the sources and instructions for 6.5 "should" be
> fairly easy. Updating the running OS on the Live CD is another story...
>
> I would think that all that one needs to do to update the instructions and
> sources on the Live CD
Updating the Live CD to use the sources and instructions for 6.5 "should" be
fairly easy. Updating the running OS on the Live CD is another story...
I would think that all that one needs to do to update the instructions and
sources on the Live CD would be to:
1) save the ISO somwhere
2) delete t
On 9/7/2009 7:50 PM, William Immendorf wrote:
> No. That's normal. I'm more concerned about the fact that you are
> using LFS 6.3, which is a old-as-bones version of LFS. If you are
> thinking long term, try LFS 6.5.
>
> William
>
I would guess that the reason is that he is using the livecd (tha
awn Eary wrote:
> > Friends:
> >
> > I am in Section 6.9 (Glibc-2.5.1) of the LFS v6.3 manual and I am having
> > trouble.
> >
> > The "make" command proceeded without error, but when I ran
> > make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
>
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Shawn Eary wrote:
> Friends:
>
> I am in Section 6.9 (Glibc-2.5.1) of the LFS v6.3 manual and I am having
> trouble.
>
> The "make" command proceeded without error, but when I ran
> make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
On 9/7/2009 6:19 PM, Shawn Eary wrote:
> Friends:
>
> I am in Section 6.9 (Glibc-2.5.1) of the LFS v6.3 manual and I am having
> trouble.
>
> The "make" command proceeded without error, but when I ran
> make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
> I got
Friends:
I am in Section 6.9 (Glibc-2.5.1) of the LFS v6.3 manual and I am having
trouble.
The "make" command proceeded without error, but when I ran
make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
I got the following error:
make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 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
Oh sorry, I seem to have really weird grammar
today and I haven't answered your question yet:
- unpack glibc-tarball
- change dir to glibc-2.5.1
- unpack libidn tarball from directory above
- rename created dir to libidn
- (...)
- change to top level directory
- make build dir
- change to build di
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
Hi,
normally, the structure when installing
programs with separate build directories
should like this:
+maindir
| - tarballs and patches
| + unpacked source tarball (e.g. glibc-2.5.1)
| | - source tree
| + builddir (e.g. glibc-build)
| | - commands entered here
However, you seem to m
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, further moving to the first level directory created by the
action of unpacking t
Hi , I'm building from the livecd 6.3-2160
...on an AMD k6-2 300 mhz 128 mbram laptop.
Things have been going very well so far.
Here in chapter 6.9:
make ...exited with no apparent problems...
Then make -k check reported a few things I didn't see in other posts.
From what the book says about th
14 matches
Mail list logo
