On 09-02-2015 11:37, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > On 08-02-2015 23:18, Alexey Orishko wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Alexey Orishko > As Armin suggested, >> I've tried nasm-2.11.05 and syslinux build >>> finished without any errors. >>> Is a build failure related to nasm-2.11.06 a reason to consider a >>> different NASM version for the book release? I can use whatever I need >>> in my build, but other might also face similar problems... >> >> Got reply on syslinux mail list: >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Jonathan Boeing >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I had the same failure with 2.11.06, but the latest snapshot is working >>> correctly for me. >>> See http://sourceforge.net/p/nasm/mailman/message/33074214/ >> >> It looks like either nasm-2.11.05 or a latest nasm snapshot is a >> better choice... > > I'm trying to understand implications of the three alternatives: > > 1. downgrade > 2. leave as is > 3. use a snapshot or equivalent patch. > > Don't have an opinion about it, don't want to decide anything. > > Search of nasm package wich is dependent in SVN finds(no comment after a > package means it builds with current nasm): > > libvpx (compiling with NASM-2.11.05 or NASM-2.11.06 is currently broken) > flac > sdl > lame > libjpeg-turbo > tigervnc (nasm isn't actually required - will create a new thread about > this)
Forgot SDL > > For what the book needs, current version seems to work. Only problem, > libvpx, is marked as broken with the downgrade candidate, in BLFS-7.6. > -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
