setting up the environment command
this starts off with the command cat
i typed it in and everything was frozen or destroyed after that it
didnt respond at all
please explain what setting up the enivironment does
and creating a new bash profile is it neccessary to install the packages???
-
Le mercredi 18 mars à 09:16, Laurence Jeloudev a écrit :
> setting up the environment command
>
> this starts off with the command cat
>
> i typed it in and everything was frozen or destroyed after that it
> didnt respond at all
When did it freeze ? What did you type at last ? Did you respect
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:20:30PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Is 6.4 considered sufficiently "stable"?
I just built 6.4 (on an LFS 6.3 host) without any problems, so it
looks to be stable enough for me. I didn't use the "build alongside
the existing system" hint though, I did the stan
Frank Peters wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:35:40 -0600
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> ISTM that this is a philosophical problem which must be addressed.
>> One way of addressing it would be to abandon "my machine, MY rules"
>> as an absolute principle, and support, say RPM, or APT, or whatever,
>>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:20:30PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> I started LFS 6.3, and got to the point where I was ready to make
> it bootable, but got interrupted (several months ago). I'm now
> ready to take the plunge again, and resume or restart building.
>
> So, I'm asking the development te
I see that a couple of files wouldn't retrieve, and found the
"errata". I note that the errata section contains, well not
exactly an erratum, but perhaps an omission. The replacement
URL
ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/development/glibc-2.8-20080929.tar.bz2
is actually a symbolic li
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:50:01 -0600
Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Ah, we disagree here. What I'm looking for is "my machine,
> MY rules", not "I want to become an expert on all aspects
> of Linux build and system maintenance". If I had a decent
> source distro which actually gave me the control I want
Ken Moffat wrote:
Thanks very much for the reply.
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:20:30PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
>> So, I'm asking the development team which version is considered
>> the best to use at the moment. Is 6.3 now considered "retired"?
>> Is 6.4 considered sufficiently "stable
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51:36AM -0400, Frank Peters wrote:
>
> The X Window developers have created a simple Bash script that
> can be used to compile the two hundred or so individual packages
> that make up the X system. The script just contains a list
> (actually there are several categorize
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:07:43AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Are you saying that the BLFS for 6.3 will run fine with 6.4? I'd think
> so. Also, as you note, I really don't care about the L&G GUI stuff.
> I do my maintenance using a CLI, anyway. I might want a later GIMP
> and maybe EOG (mine
support wrote:
>
> I don't quite get what you are after, if you are downloading a file from
> the authors site, and you also want an md5 from the same site to confirm
> the download, its kind of pointless. If the site has been hacked and
> the original source replaced with something else, it stan
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 12:07:43 Mike McCarty wrote:
> I got to learn about some dual boot
> issues with Compaq computers (they go into "recovery" mode if the
> MBR isn't as shipped, so I use the Windows Boot Manager in XP to
> boot GRUB off of another partition) and also about XP recovery
> alo
Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> It would be nice to have a single file which listed all the md5
> (prefereably sha1) sums for all the files which could be used as
> input for automated test.
>
> Mike
Uh, you mean like this? -
ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/development/MD5SUMS
Every dir
Chris Staub wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> It would be nice to have a single file which listed all the md5
>> (prefereably sha1) sums for all the files which could be used as
>> input for automated test.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Uh, you mean like this? -
> ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/dev
Mike McCarty wrote:
> support wrote:
>> I don't quite get what you are after, if you are downloading a file from
>> the authors site, and you also want an md5 from the same site to confirm
>> the download, its kind of pointless. If the site has been hacked and
>> the original source replaced with
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> support wrote:
>>> I don't quite get what you are after, if you are downloading a file from
>>> the authors site, and you also want an md5 from the same site to confirm
>>> the download, its kind of pointless. If the site has been hacked and
>>> the ori
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 March 2009 12:07:43 Mike McCarty wrote:
>> I got to learn about some dual boot
>> issues with Compaq computers (they go into "recovery" mode if the
>> MBR isn't as shipped, so I use the Windows Boot Manager in XP to
>> boot GRUB off of another par
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 15:38:23 Mike McCarty wrote:
> genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 March 2009 12:07:43 Mike McCarty wrote:
> >> I got to learn about some dual boot
> >> issues with Compaq computers (they go into "recovery" mode if
> >> the MBR isn't as shipped, so I use
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Frank Peters wrote:
> The problem, I strongly feel, is in the make program itself.
> For some reason, the developers of the standard GNU build
> sequence, that is "./configure, make, and make install," did
> not choose to create an install log for the user after t
SKOC(DOPOLE Tomá wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I have booted LFS live CD and now I am in the chapter 5.12. GCC-4.3.2 - Pass
> 2.
> I have some question about this command:
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-4.3.2$ expect -c "spawn ls"
>
> I got this response:
> spawn ls
> but in the book is written t
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 15:46:08 Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Frank Peters
wrote:
> > The problem, I strongly feel, is in the make program itself.
> > For some reason, the developers of the standard GNU build
> > sequence, that is "./configure, make, and make ins
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:46:08 -0500
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
> Because that goes against the Unix developer mentality. Providing an
> "checkinstall" style functionality is not the purpose of make.
> According to the man page: "The purpose of the make utility is to
> determine automatically which
Frank Peters wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:46:08 -0500
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
>> Because that goes against the Unix developer mentality. Providing an
>> "checkinstall" style functionality is not the purpose of make.
>> According to the man page: "The purpose of the make utility is to
>> de
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:01:47 -0600
Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Often Makefiles don't do the install themselves, but
> rather either us "cp" or "install" to put things where
> they go, when one uses "make install". I don't like
> the idea of making "make" have purposeful output to track
> versions an
although hal starts withouth problems on two laptops , I cannot get hal to
start on my main PC during the boot process. After booting, there is no
problem.
In order to avoid a known issue with hal delivering a "proc/mdstat: no such
file or directory" message , I configured the kernel accordin
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote:
>> Uh, you mean like this? -
>> ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/development/MD5SUMS
>>
>> Every dir in the LFS download ftp has an MD5SUMS file listing md5sums
>> for all files in that dir.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/s
Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Ok, gunzip thinks there is no error, but when I pulled that
> file from
>
> ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/6.4/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
>
> it's different from the wget-list file's URL target
>
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/inetutils/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
>
> So, w
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Frank Peters wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:46:08 -0500
>> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>>
>>> Because that goes against the Unix developer mentality. Providing an
>>> "checkinstall" style functionality is not the purpose of make.
>>> According to the man page: "The purpose of t
Frank Peters wrote:
>
> Yes, that is correct. The install commands are specified
> in the Makefiles for a package. If it would be possible
> to redirect output from these commands to a text file, that
> certainly would be a lot simpler than the approach taken
> by package managers such as insta
29 matches
Mail list logo
