On 05/20/2013 02:12 AM, Markku Pesonen wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> I have always in the past used a ext3 partition on my LFS systems. I
>> have changed to ext4 and on boot I get errors that are saying than it
>> had problems mounting the partition due to unsupported options, it has
>> EXT3-fs in
Baho Utot wrote:
> I have always in the past used a ext3 partition on my LFS systems. I
> have changed to ext4 and on boot I get errors that are saying than it
> had problems mounting the partition due to unsupported options, it has
> EXT3-fs in the first two error messages, the third message s
On 5/19/2013 9:11 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 05:22:45PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>>> I have always in the past used a ext3 partition on my LFS systems. I
>>> have changed to ext4 and on boot I get errors that are saying than it
>>> had problems mounting the
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 05:22:45PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> I have always in the past used a ext3 partition on my LFS systems. I
>> have changed to ext4 and on boot I get errors that are saying than it
>> had problems mounting the partition due to unsupported options, it has
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 05:22:45PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> I have always in the past used a ext3 partition on my LFS systems. I
> have changed to ext4 and on boot I get errors that are saying than it
> had problems mounting the partition due to unsupported options, it has
> EXT3-fs in the fir
I have always in the past used a ext3 partition on my LFS systems. I
have changed to ext4 and on boot I get errors that are saying than it
had problems mounting the partition due to unsupported options, it has
EXT3-fs in the first two error messages, the third message says it uses
EXT4-fs and
Armin K. wrote:
> Hello, I have taken some time to write a howto for LFS + Systemd.
This is a nice piece of work. Could I ask you to reformat it slightly
in accordance with http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/sample-hint.txt
and we can put it in the hints section of the web site.
-- Bruce
On 01/27/2013 06:34 PM, Armin K. wrote:
> Hello, I have taken some time to write a howto for LFS + Systemd.
>
> The instructions follow LFS BOOK versioned SVN-20130125 with additions
> from BLFS BOOK versioned 2013-01-26.
>
> Packages are installed in same order as alwas, mentioned versions were
>
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 18:34 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
> Hello, I have taken some time to write a howto for LFS + Systemd.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. FYI, there's also a hint at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/systemd.txt.
> I don't need any more rants like "Why t
Hello, I have taken some time to write a howto for LFS + Systemd.
The instructions follow LFS BOOK versioned SVN-20130125 with additions
from BLFS BOOK versioned 2013-01-26.
Packages are installed in same order as alwas, mentioned versions were
used without any modifications to the LFS book o
On Dec 31, 2012, at 11:21 PM, JIA Pei wrote:
I successfully built LFS on a SD card, but I failed to boot from it.
Building Development of LFS won't fix the boot failure with an SD card.
I recommend that you resolve that issue.
-William--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-sup
This is due to an older version of bash. It can be safely ignored.
>
>
>
> Wrong. Read the -k option of make. What are you doing building LFS SVN if
> you have no idea what is going on?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Harrington
>
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/
option of make. What are you doing building LFS
SVN if you have no idea what is going on?
Sincerely,
William Harrington--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
sorry, remove the question.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/make-check-error-6-9-1-glibc-lfs-6-5-a-765594/
answers clearly:
This is due to an older version of bash. It can be safely ignored.
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:11 PM, JIA Pei wrote:
>
> Hi, all:
>
> http://
Hi, all:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/glibc.html
make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
brings me the following error message (and only the following error message
was recorded in file *glibc-check-log*:
*make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.*
*
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:02:04 -0400 (EDT)
fivefr...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Hi.
>
> When I attempted to apply patch gcc-4.6.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch(from
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/ at 2011-09-18)
> into GCC 4.6.1 source tree(patch -Np1 -i
> ../sources/patches/gcc-4.6.1
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 04:02:04AM -0400, fivefr...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Hi.
>
> When I attempted to apply patch gcc-4.6.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch(from
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/ at 2011-09-18)
> into GCC 4.6.1 source tree(patch -Np1 -i
> ../sources/patches/gcc-4.6.1
Hi.
When I attempted to apply patch gcc-4.6.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch(from
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/ at 2011-09-18)
into GCC 4.6.1 source tree(patch -Np1 -i
../sources/patches/gcc-4.6.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch), the program says:
patching file gcc/gcc.c
Hunk #1 succee
Grub setup gave the error in one of my previous messages
On Monday, September 5, 2011, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Tyler McMaster wrote:
>
>> fdisk -l
>>
>> Disk /dev/sda: 68.7 GB, 68719476736 bytes
>> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 8354 cylinders, total 134217728 sectors
>> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 5
I'll try in just a minute
On Monday, September 5, 2011, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Tyler McMaster wrote:
>
>> fdisk -l
>>
>> Disk /dev/sda: 68.7 GB, 68719476736 bytes
>> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 8354 cylinders, total 134217728 sectors
>> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>> Sector size (logica
I only use vm because everytime I've done it on a physical machine it never
worked
On Monday, September 5, 2011, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 09/05/2011 12:59 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> You still don't tell us the command you used. I assume that it was:
>>
>> grub-install /dev/sda
>>
>> What was th
Tyler McMaster wrote:
> fdisk -l
>
> Disk /dev/sda: 68.7 GB, 68719476736 bytes
> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 8354 cylinders, total 134217728 sectors
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 byte
On 09/05/2011 12:59 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> You still don't tell us the command you used. I assume that it was:
>
> grub-install /dev/sda
>
> What was the result of 'cat device.map'?
>
> Is /dev mounted in chroot?
> What is the result (in chroot) of 'fdisk -l'
>
Also, please include the out
Tyler McMaster wrote:
/usr/sbin/grub-setup: warn: Attempting to install GRUB to a disk with
multiple partition labels or both partition label and filesystem. This
is not supported yet..
/usr/sbin/grub-setup: warn: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be
installed in this setup by using b
Tmp.txt is the file i made that has the error
/usr/sbin/grub-setup: warn: Attempting to install GRUB to a disk with multiple
partition labels or both partition label and filesystem. This is not supported
yet..
/usr/sbin/grub-setup: warn: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be
installed in
Ok, I'll reply with an attached file once I can generate it
On Monday, September 5, 2011, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 09/05/2011 01:32 AM, Tyler McMaster wrote:
>> grub-install /dev/sda
>>
>> UBUNTU VERSION 10.04 LiveCD
>> Latest SVN
>> Grub is not installed because Ubuntu is liveCD.
>>
>> Partitions? E
On 09/05/2011 01:32 AM, Tyler McMaster wrote:
> grub-install /dev/sda
>
> UBUNTU VERSION 10.04 LiveCD
> Latest SVN
> Grub is not installed because Ubuntu is liveCD.
>
> Partitions? Ext3, Swap
>
> The base system is built. I just need the boot loader to be installed so
> I can customize it further.
grub-install /dev/sda
UBUNTU VERSION 10.04 LiveCD
Latest SVN
Grub is not installed because Ubuntu is liveCD.
Partitions? Ext3, Swap
The base system is built. I just need the boot loader to be installed so I
can customize it further.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FA
Tyler McMaster wrote:
> I got the SVN book and packages and tried to develop a test machine with
> ubuntu as the host distro.
>
> GRUB does not want to install. It says something about blocklists not being
> recommended or reliable.
You are a little thin on data here. What command were you runni
2011/4/6 bsquared :
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:09 AM, xinglp wrote:
>> I created it by learning the Official LFS LiveCD, but my version has
>> no desktop.
>>
>> jhalfs can run in it.
>>
>> With pkgs ssh, apache, svn, php, nginx, sqlite, mysql, gdb, valgrind
>>
>> Introduction
>> http://smart
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:09 AM, xinglp wrote:
> I created it by learning the Official LFS LiveCD, but my version has
> no desktop.
>
> jhalfs can run in it.
>
> With pkgs ssh, apache, svn, php, nginx, sqlite, mysql, gdb, valgrind
>
> Introduction
> http://smartutils.sf.net/livecd.html
>
> Do
32bits and 64bits together
http://sourceforge.net/projects/smartutils/files/smartlinux-2011-0402-dual.iso/download
http://st.yesit.tk/smartlinux-2011-0402-dual.iso
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the abo
I created it by learning the Official LFS LiveCD, but my version has
no desktop.
jhalfs can run in it.
With pkgs ssh, apache, svn, php, nginx, sqlite, mysql, gdb, valgrind
Introduction
http://smartutils.sf.net/livecd.html
Downlowd:
http://st.yesit.tk/smartlinux-2011-0402-i386.iso
http://s
Found this reply at the url below, just wanted to make the response easy to
find.
http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/msg14651.html
Sometimes it's the host OS and sometimes the HW and sometimes a newer
compiler than the tests expect. Generally, they are timing issues a
hello LFS Support List,
as mention on chapter 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1
"You will probably see an expected (ignored) failure in the posix/annexc test"
so i ignored the failure and continue with the rest of the book.
however at the end
i got this screen when i boot the new system
http://linuxfromscratc
log is
Fri Sep 24 05:35:11 GMT-8 2010
KB: 886988 /
run_command: calling: test
udevadm_test: version 162
parse_file: reading '/lib/udev/rules.d/50-firmware.rules' as rules file
parse_file: reading '/lib/udev/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules' as rules file
parse_file: reading '/etc/udev/rules
On 09/08/2010 05:56 AM, Martin Zajíc wrote:
[putolin]
> So i've rewrite gcc pass2 with last svn and it's working.
>
> I have another question about testing error.
> I try to make LOG with '{} 2>&1 | tee $BUILD_DIR/LOG_$PROGRAM.log'
> but when I did it how can I test it for errors, becouse
On Wednesday 08 September 2010 05:56:23 Martin Zajíc wrote:
> I have another question about testing error.
> I try to make LOG with '{} 2>&1 | tee $BUILD_DIR/LOG_$PROGRAM.log'
> but when I did it how can I test it for errors, becouse '$?' not
> working even if the script inside ending with 'exi
2010/9/8 Martin Zajíc :
> So i've rewrite gcc pass2 with last svn and it's working.
>
> I have another question about testing error.
> I try to make LOG with '{} 2>&1 | tee $BUILD_DIR/LOG_$PROGRAM.log'
> but when I did it how can I test it for errors, becouse '$?' not
> working even if the sc
>> It's not 100% but for now all comands working I checked it. Only
>> problem is that GCC (all gcc binaries) is bad linked, but only GCC
>> nothink else.
>>
>
> So, since this is a school project, all *you* have to do is to work
> out what you did wrongly, or missed. Assuming your controlling
>
2010/9/7 Martin Zajíc :
>>
> It's not 100% but for now all comands working I checked it. Only
> problem is that GCC (all gcc binaries) is bad linked, but only GCC
> nothink else.
>
So, since this is a school project, all *you* have to do is to work
out what you did wrongly, or missed. Assuming
> On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 13:22 +0200, Martin Zajíc wrote:
>> And errors in configure, make, make install scripts detecting
>> automatically and stop build.
>
> Are you sure? Until recently, that's what I *thought* my scripts were
> doing, until one of the aforementioned "obscure problems" convinced
On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 13:22 +0200, Martin Zajíc wrote:
> And errors in configure, make, make install scripts detecting
> automatically and stop build.
Are you sure? Until recently, that's what I *thought* my scripts were
doing, until one of the aforementioned "obscure problems" convinced me
otherw
>> Sometimes people accidentally miss one of the packages,
>> or build it but fail to install it.
>
> Or more commonly with scripted builds, the script fails to recognise
> that a command has failed, and continues with the next step.
But think is I have everythink logged and doing packages one by
On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 20:05 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> Sometimes people accidentally miss one of the packages,
> or build it but fail to install it.
Or more commonly with scripted builds, the script fails to recognise
that a command has failed, and continues with the next step.
Scripted builds *
> I can't comment on the *comments* in that script, but
> a quick look suggests you are doing the same things as
> I do. So, perhaps the problem is elsewhere.
>
> We can see that 'make' is apparently found and executable,
> but gcc is not. The first steps are: take a sample of packages
> from c
2010/9/4 Martin Zajíc :
> Hi, me again
> I have another issue. I'am sure it's my fault but I can't solve it.
> I'am building LFS as my school project and i'am trying write all of it
> in set of bash scripts.
>
> So I've write scripts for chapter 5 and in chapter 6 I found issue
> that I've do some
Hi, me again
I have another issue. I'am sure it's my fault but I can't solve it.
I'am building LFS as my school project and i'am trying write all of it
in set of bash scripts.
So I've write scripts for chapter 5 and in chapter 6 I found issue
that I've do something wrong probably in adjusting tool
>> configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.3.1+ and MPC 0.8.0+.
>
> That one looks like a typo - it's trying to run one of the parameters to
> configure as a separate command, which means you've probably missed a
> '\' at the end of a line, or something like that.
Thank's it was t
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 00:15 +0200, Martin Zajíc wrote:
> configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.3.1+ and MPC 0.8.0+.
See comments below...
> /mnt/lfs/scripts/chap5/gccP2: line 140: --disable-libstdcxx-pch:
> command not found
That one looks like a typo - it's trying to run one
Hi, I have error with GCC pass 2, pass 1 work's i don't know where is
the problem.
checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking target system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /bin/install -c
checking wheth
On 08/04/2010 07:38 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> I didn't apply it in chapter 5 as my host had make-3.81. However, next
> time I build it will be with a host which uses make-3.82, so I will need
> to apply the sed in chapter 5. At least, until they fix the
> glibc/manual/Makefile.
>
Got it. Thank
On 04/08/10 23:45, Dan McGhee wrote:
> Andy, just to be clear. You apply this sed command in Chapter 6 and
> *not* in Chapter 5? I've got make-3.81 installed on my host system,
> Ubuntu-10.04, I'm building for x86_64 and using LFS-SVN-20100803.
>
Indeed.
I didn't apply
ch $@' manual/Makefile
>>> >
>>>
>> Better still, combine the 2
>>
>> sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n\ttouch $...@\n$/' manual/Makefile
>>
>>
> Andy, just to be clear. You apply this sed command in Chapter 6 and
> *not* in Chapter 5? I&
t; Better still, combine the 2
>
> sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n\ttouch $...@\n$/' manual/Makefile
>
>
Andy, just to be clear. You apply this sed command in Chapter 6 and
*not* in Chapter 5? I've got make-3.81 installed on my host system,
Ubuntu-10.04, I'm building for x
On 04/08/10 19:25, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Slightly more refined version, 2 seds, one after the other:
>
> sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n$/' manual/Makefile
> sed -i '/pot/a\\ttouch $@' manual/Makefile
>
Better still, combine the 2
sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n\ttouch $...@\n$/' manual/Makefile
I don't know if it'
On 04/08/10 18:56, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 03/08/10 05:19, Angus Gibson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm getting a strange build error in glibc:
>>
>> root:/sources/builds/glibc/build# make
>>
>>
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/builds/glibc/src/wctype'
>> make subdir=manual -C manual
On 03/08/10 05:19, Angus Gibson wrote:
>Hi all,
>
> I'm getting a strange build error in glibc:
>
> root:/sources/builds/glibc/build# make
>
>
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/builds/glibc/src/wctype'
> make subdir=manual -C manual ..=../ subdir_lib
> make[2]: Entering directory
On 3/08/10 8:14 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 05:19, Angus Gibson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm getting a strange build error in glibc:
>>
>> root:/sources/builds/glibc/build# make
>>
>>
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/builds/glibc/src/wctype'
>> make subdir=manual -C ma
On 3 August 2010 05:19, Angus Gibson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm getting a strange build error in glibc:
>
> root:/sources/builds/glibc/build# make
>
>
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/builds/glibc/src/wctype'
> make subdir=manual -C manual ..=../ subdir_lib
> make[2]: Entering directory
Hi all,
I'm getting a strange build error in glibc:
root:/sources/builds/glibc/build# make
make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/builds/glibc/src/wctype'
make subdir=manual -C manual ..=../ subdir_lib
make[2]: Entering directory `/sources/builds/glibc/src/manual'
Makefile:235: *** mixed i
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 07/05/10 11:47, xinglp wrote:
>> md5sum -c .\list.md5
>>
>> lfs-bootscripts-20100124.tar.bz2: FAILED
>> udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2: FAILED
>> md5sum: WARNING: 2 of 76 computed checksums did NOT match
>>
> I wouldn't worry about those. The bootscripts and udev config chan
On 07/05/10 11:47, xinglp wrote:
> md5sum -c .\list.md5
>
> lfs-bootscripts-20100124.tar.bz2: FAILED
> udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2: FAILED
> md5sum: WARNING: 2 of 76 computed checksums did NOT match
>
I wouldn't worry about those. The bootscripts and udev config change all the
time.
I think they'
md5sum -c .\list.md5
lfs-bootscripts-20100124.tar.bz2: FAILED
udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2: FAILED
md5sum: WARNING: 2 of 76 computed checksums did NOT match
lfs-svn-9267.md5
Description: Binary data
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http
/*
* Allocate the Input buffer front-end.
*/
ret = xmlAllocParserInputBuffer(enc);
if (ret != NULL) {
ret->context = context;
ret->readcallback = xmlInputCallbackTable[i].readcallback;
ret->closecallback = xmlInputCallbackTable[i].closecallback;
#ifdef HAVE_ZLIB_H
if ((xmlInpu
I met it when I build LFS html book.
It can be fixed it with
./configure \
--prefix=/usr \
--without-zlib
xmlIO.c:2396 2-2.6.31
xmlIO.c:2510 2-2.7.6
/*
* Allocate the Input buffer front-end.
*/
ret = xmlAllocParserInputBuffer(enc);
if (ret != NULL) {
ret->context = context
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 00:05:10 Philippe Delavalade wrote:
> The host was debian squeeze.
>
> Fisrt in 4.3 and 4.4, I didn't get the correct prompt although I used the
> -k /dev/null option in useradd ; .bash_profile was conform to 4.4. But my
> $PS1 was in fact '\...@\h:\w$ '. What to thin
Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> Philippe Delavalade wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Two weeks ago I tried to install LFS svn-20091012 on a computer with no
>> internet connection... So my questions won't be very precise because I
>> forgot one error message :-(
[...]
Philippe Delavalade wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Two weeks ago I tried to install LFS svn-20091012 on a computer with no
> internet connection... So my questions won't be very precise because I
> forgot one error message :-(
>
> The host was debian squeeze.
>
> Fisrt in 4.3 a
Hi.
Two weeks ago I tried to install LFS svn-20091012 on a computer with no
internet connection... So my questions won't be very precise because I
forgot one error message :-(
The host was debian squeeze.
Fisrt in 4.3 and 4.4, I didn't get the correct prompt although I used the
-k
I'm running on x86_64 host to build 32-bit LFS.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 07:53:27 michael kapelko wrote:
> Hello.
> For my host the $LFS_TGT is get assigned to x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu.
> Assining target option of configure script yields $LFS_TGT-prog-name
> program names instead of normal ones.
> I also used flags CC="gcc -m32" and CXX="g++ -m32
Hello.
For my host the $LFS_TGT is get assigned to x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu.
Assining target option of configure script yields $LFS_TGT-prog-name
program names instead of normal ones.
I also used flags CC="gcc -m32" and CXX="g++ -m32" to get 32-bit tools.
Is this correct to get $LFS_TGT-prog-name pro
On 10/31/06, randhir phagura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
There is a contradictory Note at "Section: 3.2.- All Packages" with regard
to kernel-2.6.18.1.
The Note says "Do not use version 2.6.18 or later kernels due to potential
incompatibilites with the bootscripts." But the book version uses
Hi,
There is a contradictory Note at "Section: 3.2.- All Packages" with regard
to kernel-2.6.18.1.
The Note says "Do not use version 2.6.18 or later kernels due to potential
incompatibilites with the bootscripts." But the book version uses the
kernel-headers-2.6.18.1 and also the kernel itself
Op wo 07-12-2005, om 13:23 schreef Randy McMurchy:
> The only thing I noticed is that you didn't say that you created
> the symlink from /opt/qt-3.3.5 to /opt/qt.
Sorry, forgot to mention it, but it does exist.
--
Groetjes Japie
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ:
I've submitted an updated version of the more_control_helpers to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] It's "awaiting moderator approval". I hope it'll be online
soon.
MSB
--
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http:/
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:45:04 +0200 "Matthias B."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll try to make a new release of the
> scripts this weekend.
Sorry, haven't found time this weekend. But it's not forgotten.
MSB
--
Who is this General Failure,
and why is he reading my disk ?
--
http://linuxfroms
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:43:32 +0200 Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Matthias
> I report the output of the commands you suggested.
> Does it help?
> Perhaps -o+w is the right option, while +o+w is not. Just a guess.
Both do the same thing or at least they used to. I've just checked the
Hi Matthias
I report the output of the commands you suggested.
Does it help?
Perhaps -o+w is the right option, while +o+w is not. Just a guess.
On 10/25/05, Matthias B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, "-perm +o+w" is supposed to select all files that have the
> world-writable bit set. In you
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:26:48 +0200 Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 10/23/05, Matthias B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Could you go to /usr/src/libdvdread and try out what
> >
> > find -type f -perm +o+w -printf "%p"
> >
> > reports.
> >
> > What does
> >
> > ls -la /usr/src/libd
On 10/23/05, Matthias B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could you go to /usr/src/libdvdread and try out what
>
> find -type f -perm +o+w -printf "%p"
>
> reports.
>
> What does
>
> ls -la /usr/src/libdvdread
>
> say?
>
The output of the commands follows:
package libdvdread:/usr/src/libdvdread> fi
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:12:44 +0200 Luca Dionisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Tor
> > Have anyone out there been using the More Control and Package
> > Management using Package Users (v1.1) with the latest LFS-SVN's?
>
> I've got a _similar_ problem with list_package.
>
> I'm using LFS 6.1 Sta
Luca Dionisi wrote:
Hi Tor
Have anyone out there been using the More Control and Package Management
using Package Users (v1.1) with the latest LFS-SVN's?
I've got a _similar_ problem with list_package.
I'm using LFS 6.1 Stable.
At the beginning it was doing fine. From a certain point
Hi Tor
> Have anyone out there been using the More Control and Package Management
> using Package Users (v1.1) with the latest LFS-SVN's?
I've got a _similar_ problem with list_package.
I'm using LFS 6.1 Stable.
At the beginning it was doing fine. From a certain point
towards, - I can't recall th
Hi there everyone ;)
Have anyone out there been using the More Control and Package Management
using Package Users (v1.1) with the latest LFS-SVN's?
I've built SVN-20051009 using Package Users, but now the list_package
script fails to produce the summary at the beginning. It now only lists
Liba
86 matches
Mail list logo
