On 10/20/2013 05:13 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Casey Daniels wrote:
>> On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Are these lines split for email or are they that way in the file? I
>>> think you need to escape some newlines. For example,
>>>
>>> # net device e1000e
>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION
Casey Daniels wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> Are these lines split for email or are they that way in the file? I
>> think you need to escape some newlines. For example,
>>
>> # net device e1000e
>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", \
>> ATTR{address}=="XX
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Are these lines split for email or are they that way in the file? I
> think you need to escape some newlines. For example,
>
> # net device e1000e
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", \
> ATTR{address}=="XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX", ATTR{dev_id}=
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Casey Daniels wrote:
>> On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Casey Daniels wrote:
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard
On 10/20/2013 11:25 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Casey Daniels wrote:
>> On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Casey Daniels wrote:
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard
Casey Daniels wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Casey Daniels wrote:
>>> My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
>>> additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
>>> onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed u
On 10/20/2013 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Casey Daniels wrote:
>> My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
>> additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
>> onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed up. I've edited
>> the 70-pe
Casey Daniels wrote:
> My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
> additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
> onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed up. I've edited
> the 70-persistent-net.rules file, but udev seems to be igno
My system was working fine, until I decided that I needed to add an
additional Network interface card (turned on the previous deactivated
onboard NIC). Now my network card names are all messed up. I've edited
the 70-persistent-net.rules file, but udev seems to be ignoring it and
naming device
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2010 16:22:34 Stuart Stegall wrote:
>> My M3 runs better in the cold, and that has everything to do with
>> cold. In this case though, this is in a temperature controlled Data
>> Center with no competition for cycles. T
On Thursday 09 December 2010 16:22:34 Stuart Stegall wrote:
> My M3 runs better in the cold, and that has everything to do with
> cold. In this case though, this is in a temperature controlled Data
> Center with no competition for cycles. The program actually runs
> during the day, but if the bui
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, robert wrote:
> Stuart Stegall wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
No, I got the "me hopes" part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
methinks ...
It
Stuart Stegall wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I got the "me hopes" part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
>>> methinks ...
>>>
>>> It's the "build itself" part ... still don't understand wha
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, I got the "me hopes" part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
>> methinks ...
>>
>> It's the "build itself" part ... still don't understand what that means.
>> Do you m
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:31:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
>
>
> No, I got the "me hopes" part ... quite Shakespearean, in fact ... as in
> methinks ...
>
> It's the "build itself" part ... still don't understand what that means.
> Do you mean just write up a script and cut it loose to build th
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:46:00PM -0600, robert wrote:
>> .config of host reveals: # CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is not set
>> gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
>> glibc: libc-2.11.1.so
>> kernel: vmlinuz-2.6.32-26-generic
> Those seem adequate
>> what does this mean?
>> "me ho
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:48:22PM -0600, robert wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for the help. I do have /dev/sda5:
>> /dev/sda5: UUID="a6ce6f3f-7bb5-4069-a32c-a8388472f15d" TYPE="ext3"
>>
> You write English well, but I wonder if you have misunderstood ?
> The question can be rewor
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:48:22PM -0600, robert wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for the help. I do have /dev/sda5:
> /dev/sda5: UUID="a6ce6f3f-7bb5-4069-a32c-a8388472f15d" TYPE="ext3"
>
You write English well, but I wonder if you have misunderstood ?
The question can be reworded as "in chroot, does
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:46:00PM -0600, robert wrote:
>
> .config of host reveals: # CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is not set
> gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
> glibc: libc-2.11.1.so
> kernel: vmlinuz-2.6.32-26-generic
Those seem adequate
>
> what does this mean?
> "me hopes this isn't an exam
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0600, robert wrote:
>> pastebin URL:
>> http://pastebin.com/6jaJfxeP
>
> Test 31 (add) - test labelled "Program with subshell"
>
> plus the 'error as expected' messages for 81, 82.
>
> Possibly, your build of bash will turn out to be damag
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:12:52AM -0600, robert wrote:
>> Partial output of make check:
>>
>> make --no-print-directory check-recursive
>> Making check in .
>> make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
>> make[3]: `libudev/test-libudev' is up to date.
>> mak
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0600, robert wrote:
>
> pastebin URL:
> http://pastebin.com/6jaJfxeP
Test 31 (add) - test labelled "Program with subshell"
plus the 'error as expected' messages for 81, 82.
Possibly, your build of bash will turn out to be damaged, or else
your host maybe has
robert wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Stuart Stegall wrote:
>>
udev-test will run 142 tests:
FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
==
1 of 1 test failed
>> My system has error as expected for tests 1, 48, 81, 82, 139, 140, and
>> 141 for udev-
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Stuart Stegall wrote:
>
>>> udev-test will run 142 tests:
>>>
>>> FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
>>> ==
>>> 1 of 1 test failed
>
> My system has error as expected for tests 1, 48, 81, 82, 139, 140, and
> 141 for udev-161.
>
> 0 errors oc
Stuart Stegall wrote:
>> udev-test will run 142 tests:
>>
>> FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
>> ==
>> 1 of 1 test failed
My system has error as expected for tests 1, 48, 81, 82, 139, 140, and
141 for udev-161.
0 errors occured
PASS: test/udev-test.pl
===
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:12:52AM -0600, robert wrote:
>
> Partial output of make check:
>
> make --no-print-directory check-recursive
> Making check in .
> make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
> make[3]: `libudev/test-libudev' is up to date.
> make[3]: `udev/test-udev'
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM, robert wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:17PM -0500, Mike Hollis wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
In other matters, I'm setting up another machine to step thru the LFS
build ... don't know what e
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:17PM -0500, Mike Hollis wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
>>> In other matters, I'm setting up another machine to step thru the LFS
>>> build ... don't know what else to do.
>>
>> Since your at an impasse here , w
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:17PM -0500, Mike Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
> >
> > In other matters, I'm setting up another machine to step thru the LFS
> > build ... don't know what else to do.
>
> Since your at an impasse here , why not try install
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
>
> In other matters, I'm setting up another machine to step thru the LFS
> build ... don't know what else to do.
Since your at an impasse here , why not try installing udev and if
it fails to install get a copy of the MAKDEV script , c
robert wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:36:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
>>> So, I don't follow then. Instructions at > 6.59. Udev-161
>>> say: tar -xvf ../udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2 ...
>>> why not *J*xvf?
>> Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J'
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
>>> not 'j'. I assume you wrote it as a capital for more emphasis, but
>>> with the last two or three releases of tar 'J' is use
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:13:19PM -0600, robert wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
> > not 'j'. I assume you wrote it as a capital for more emphasis, but
> > with the last two or three releases of tar 'J' is used for xz
> > com
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:36:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
>> So, I don't follow then. Instructions at > 6.59. Udev-161
>> say: tar -xvf ../udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2 ...
>> why not *J*xvf?
>
> Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
> not 'j'. I a
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:36:31PM -0600, robert wrote:
>
> So, I don't follow then. Instructions at > 6.59. Udev-161
> say: tar -xvf ../udev-config-20100128.tar.bz2 ...
> why not *J*xvf?
Apart from the other responses, I can't help commenting that 'J' is
not 'j'. I assume you wrote it as a ca
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 14:53:10 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> When extracting, GNU tar is smart enough to recognize the compression
>> type, if any, without being told. This capability has been in place for
>> several years.
>
> Learn something ne
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 14:53:10 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> When extracting, GNU tar is smart enough to recognize the compression
> type, if any, without being told. This capability has been in place for
> several years.
Learn something new every day! I've been using the specific option for so
lon
for
> several years.
>
>-- Bruce
Thanks. I'd examined the directories and all seemed nicely unpacked.
Was just wondering if the absence of the bz2 filter was causing my udev
problem.
r.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
robert wrote:
> Neal Murphy wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 04:55:43 robert wrote:
>>> unpacked udev-161.tar.bz2
>>> cd udev-161
>>> then copy and paste ... (the two dearchive operations are "xvf"??? and
>>> not "jxvf"???
>> 'tar xvf' unpacks a noncompressed tar archvie (.tar).
>> 'tar xvfj'
Mike Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:55:43AM -0600, robert wrote:
>>> Mike H.-
>> jumped back out to "root" user
>> asserted root:root for /tools (verified)
>>
>> still at "root":
>> copy and paste everything from 6.2 thru 6.6
>>
>> now in chroot ...
>> move over to 6.59 and ...
Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 04:55:43 robert wrote:
>> unpacked udev-161.tar.bz2
>> cd udev-161
>> then copy and paste ... (the two dearchive operations are "xvf"??? and
>> not "jxvf"???
>
> 'tar xvf' unpacks a noncompressed tar archvie (.tar).
> 'tar xvfj' unpacks a bz2-compre
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 04:55:43 robert wrote:
> unpacked udev-161.tar.bz2
> cd udev-161
> then copy and paste ... (the two dearchive operations are "xvf"??? and
> not "jxvf"???
'tar xvf' unpacks a noncompressed tar archvie (.tar).
'tar xvfj' unpacks a bz2-compressed archive (.tar.bz2).
'tar x
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:55:43AM -0600, robert wrote:
> >
> > Mike H.-
>
> jumped back out to "root" user
> asserted root:root for /tools (verified)
>
> still at "root":
> copy and paste everything from 6.2 thru 6.6
>
> now in chroot ...
> move over to 6.59 and ...
> unpacked udev-16
just did the build at host level:
works fine.
any suggestions?
[X] make check
make --no-print-directory check-recursive
Making check in .
make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
CC libudev/test-libudev.o
CCLD libudev/test-libudev
CC udev/test-udev.o
CC
Mike Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:39:13PM -0600, robert wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> robert wrote:
>>>
Does this mean, then, that I am supposed to receive the message:
FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
>>> Do you have the filesystems mounted in the chroot environment? (Section
>>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:39:13PM -0600, robert wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > robert wrote:
> >
> >> Does this mean, then, that I am supposed to receive the message:
> >> FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
> >
> > Do you have the filesystems mounted in the chroot environment? (Section
> > 6.2.3)
> >
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> robert wrote:
>
>> Does this mean, then, that I am supposed to receive the message:
>> FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
>
> Do you have the filesystems mounted in the chroot environment? (Section
> 6.2.3)
>
>-- Bruce
yes, in chroot environment.
when I de-archive the bz2 files
robert wrote:
> Does this mean, then, that I am supposed to receive the message:
> FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
Do you have the filesystems mounted in the chroot environment? (Section
6.2.3)
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
6.59.1 says, in part:
Create some devices and directories that Udev cannot handle due to them
being required very early in the boot process, or by Udev itself:
$install -dv /lib/{firmware,udev/devices/{pts,shm}}
$mknod -m0666 /lib/udev/devices/null c 1 3
Does this mean, then, that I am supposed
On Thursday 03 April 2008 13:59:20 Wilco Beekhuizen wrote:> I remember
/dev/pts is for secure shells or something like that. There> is a
kernel option for that. But do you use the correct bootscripts?> The
default udev configuration should work. Have you installed the> default
rules?it was a pr
2008/4/2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Greetings,On Wednesday 02 April 2008 09:30:12 you wrote:> You probably
>
> forgot to mount /dev/pts.> Add to /etc/fstab:>> devpts
> /dev/pts devpts gid=4,mode=620 0 0>> /dev/shm seems to be
> automatically created on my system. Maybe y
Greetings,On Wednesday 02 April 2008 09:30:12 you wrote:> You probably
forgot to mount /dev/pts.> Add to /etc/fstab:>> devpts
/dev/pts devpts gid=4,mode=620 0 0>> /dev/shm seems to be
automatically created on my system. Maybe you> missed a kernel option?
thanks for your suggestio
2008/4/2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Greetings,I seem to have a problem with udev with an LFS build I did in
> January. I used kernel-2.6.23.12 (then development lfs).I get to boot
> prompt but the booting reports:mount: mount point /dev/pts does not
> existmount: mount point /d
Greetings,I seem to have a problem with udev with an LFS build I did in
January. I used kernel-2.6.23.12 (then development lfs).I get to boot
prompt but the booting reports:mount: mount point /dev/pts does not
existmount: mount point /dev/shm does not existhelp will be
appreciatedblux
54 matches
Mail list logo
