On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 22:12 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> In the real world, I believe dash has improved a
> lot once they started using it as /bin/sh, but it's
> still sufficently different to cause problems, e.g.
> in the kernel's build scripts.
That, and most package maintainers have been happy t
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 12:05 -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
> Then those that do should be considered buggy and must be fixed.
> Personally I think that requiring /bin/sh -> bash is pointless, and that
> if there are any packages that have /bin/sh while using Bash features
> those packages should be c
gaurav k wrote:
> Hey Guys...
>
> I just thought I'd let you all know how it turned out.
>
> Chris, you were absolutely right. There was a package missing. I had
> followed "host system requirements", but it seems that autoconf is
> needed too. Ubuntu Lucid does not have it installed by default.
in/sh- I had no clue! But dash worked for
me - luckily!
Thank you for your help guys!
-
Gaurav
- Original Message
From: Chris Staub
To: LFS Support List
Sent: Wed, 5 May, 2010 1:17:28 AM
Subject: Re: Make error in glibc
On 05/05/2010 12:57 AM, gaurav k wrote:
> I'
On 5 May 2010 21:57, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I really don't understand why some distros use dash. Yes, dash is
> smaller and faster, but although the differences are measurable, they
> are not discernible to the user.
>
I think it's "their distro, their rules". Or, perhaps
"we can measure it, s
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Rather than try to figure out what packages actually require
> bash features, and contact their maintainers, and then hope to
> get fixes in place, they have chosen simply to say "make
> /bin/sh point to a copy of bash".
Actually, the last time I checked, one of the main pac
Chris Staub wrote:
[/bin/sh not a pointer to .../bash]
> On 05/05/2010 07:33 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
>> That *is* a deviation - you might be typing your commands into a bash
>> shell personally, but scripts you run from there will be using /bin/sh.
>> In theory programs using /bin/sh shouldn't use
On 05/05/2010 07:33 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 07:54 +0530, gaurav k wrote:
>> I have not deviated from the book at all, the only possible difference
>> might be any differences in the host system requirement. For
>> example, /bin/sh is not a symlink to bash, but I've only used
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 07:54 +0530, gaurav k wrote:
> I have not deviated from the book at all, the only possible difference
> might be any differences in the host system requirement. For
> example, /bin/sh is not a symlink to bash, but I've only used bash
> throughout.
That *is* a deviation - yo
On 05/05/2010 12:57 AM, gaurav k wrote:
> I'm inside the extracted glibc directory, and this is what I do:
>
> $mkdir -v ../glibc-build
> $cd ../glibc-build
> $echo "CFLAGS += -march=i486 -mtune=native"> configparams
Assuming this is a literal copy of what you actually typed, this is
incorrect.
xing this?
(Bruce & Chris- thank you for replying!)
From: Chris Staub
To: LFS Support List
Sent: Mon, 3 May, 2010 11:40:03 PM
Subject: Re: Make error in glibc
On 05/03/2010 10:24 PM, gaurav k wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> This is my first mail to the list- I'm a relative newbie- thoug
On 05/03/2010 10:24 PM, gaurav k wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> This is my first mail to the list- I'm a relative newbie- though not a
> complete Linux noob who is clueless about what is happening.
>
> I have not deviated from the book at all, the only possible difference
> might be any differences in the
gaurav k wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> This is my first mail to the list- I'm a relative newbie- though not a
> complete Linux noob who is clueless about what is happening.
>
>
> I am using Ubuntu 10.04- Lucid Lynx and I'm following LFS version 6.6.
>
>
> My Host System Requirements output is as f
13 matches
Mail list logo
