On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 12:10 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> If one wants BOTH outputs to go to the stdout file, then one
> uses the &1 as the redirected output, like this
>
> $ xyz 2>&1
>
> this makes fd 2 "point to" the same file as fd 1. So,
And it's very important to remember that it's "2>&1", n
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's
benefit - so when writing code, it's esse
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's
benefit - so when writing code, it's ess
I've reposted this ... previous post possibly lost with earlier similarly
titled
thread.
Original Message
Subject: 6.16. GCC-4.5.2
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:36:04 -0500
From: robert
To: LFS Support List
This is disconcerting. While results seem to be "acceptable", the Error
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
>> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
>
> It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's
> benefit - so
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:42:40AM -0500, robert wrote:
> I've reposted this ... previous post possibly lost with earlier similarly
> titled
> thread.
>
Hi Robert,
> Original Message
> Subject: 6.16. GCC-4.5.2
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:36:04 -0500
> From: robert
> To: LFS S
On 06/22/2011 11:59 AM, Andrew Elian wrote:
> For myself, I would proceed forward, especially if the number of
> failures is similar to the results others have gotten. I don't think
> I've ever seen the gcc testsuite return zero failures.
>
>>
>> [Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-li
I am building LFS 6.8 using "Package Users" package-management.
After installing Shadow from chapter 6.55, switching as root to a new user
with su gave the error:"Setgid: Operation not permitted".
I was able to work around this problem by replacing Shadows's su with
su(-tools) from the tools-d
6.36. Bzip2-1.0.6 works fine until I reach instruction:
rm -v /usr/bin/{bunzip2,bzcat,bzip2}
re-ran the sequence and stopped just before this command; checked /usr/bin for
bunzip2, bzcat, and bzip2; these do not exist.
Is this a legacy instruction that is of no use, or has something gone awry?
robert wrote:
> 6.36. Bzip2-1.0.6 works fine until I reach instruction:
> rm -v /usr/bin/{bunzip2,bzcat,bzip2}
>
> re-ran the sequence and stopped just before this command; checked /usr/bin
> for
> bunzip2, bzcat, and bzip2; these do not exist.
>
> Is this a legacy instruction that is of no use
On 06/22/2011 04:39 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> robert wrote:
>> 6.36. Bzip2-1.0.6 works fine until I reach instruction:
>> rm -v /usr/bin/{bunzip2,bzcat,bzip2}
>>
>> re-ran the sequence and stopped just before this command; checked /usr/bin
>> for
>> bunzip2, bzcat, and bzip2; these do not exist.
>>
Serious errors? are these the errors noted
"Note that 2 tests are known to fail as they rely on warnings output from
Groff,
which changed slightly in Groff-1.21."
make[3]: Leaving directory `/sources/man-db-2.5.9/src/tests'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/man-db-2.5.9/src/tests'
make[2]:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:14 PM, jpkaper wrote:
> After installing Shadow from chapter 6.55, switching as root to a new user
> with su gave the error:"Setgid: Operation not permitted".
> I was able to work around this problem by replacing Shadows's su with
> su(-tools) from the tools-directory, bu
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:18 PM, robert wrote:
> Serious errors? are these the errors noted
> "Note that 2 tests are known to fail as they rely on warnings output from
> Groff,
> which changed slightly in Groff-1.21."
I think that's what the book meant about these two tests. You can go on.
Pleas
Grub-1.99 show "symbol grub_xputs not found" on 32bits system. But it
works well on 64bits.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
2011/6/23 xinglp :
> Grub-1.99 show "symbol grub_xputs not found" on 32bits system. But it
> works well on 64bits.
>
May be my mistake, I'll check it later
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above info
2011/6/23 xinglp :
> 2011/6/23 xinglp :
>> Grub-1.99 show "symbol grub_xputs not found" on 32bits system. But it
>> works well on 64bits.
>>
> May be my mistake, I'll check it later
>
It's like that I can't use entire the disk (/dev/sda, partitionless)
formatted with reiserfs, when I use grub-1.9
xinglp wrote:
> 2011/6/23 xinglp :
>> 2011/6/23 xinglp :
>>> Grub-1.99 show "symbol grub_xputs not found" on 32bits system. But it
>>> works well on 64bits.
>>>
>> May be my mistake, I'll check it later
>>
>
> It's like that I can't use entire the disk (/dev/sda, partitionless)
> formatted with r
http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html
Have you ever read this? Such a tiny linux...--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
19 matches
Mail list logo
