On 31/08/2019 17:25, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > On 2019-08-30 21:44 +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: >> On 30/08/2019 17:44, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: >>> On 2019-08-30 10:24 -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: >>>> On 2019-08-30 10:22, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: >>>>> On 2019-08-30 09:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: >>>>>> All packages have now been tagged and all tickets closed for the 9.0 >>>>>> release. What other things are remaining that we need to address >>>>>> before >>>>>> the Sunday release? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Bruce >>>>> >>>>> It seems #12448 and #12459 contain various security fixes. Should we >>>>> backport >>>>> them to 9.0? >>>>> -- >>>>> Xi Ruoyao <[email protected]> >>>>> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University >>>> >>>> #12456 (Ruby) has a fix for two vulnerabilities - one from 2012 and one >>>> from 2015. The problem with backporting updates is that I believe that >>>> everything that links to them has to be retested. That being said >>>> though, I'd give a +1 to backporting them. >>> >>> I'll try a full jhalfs build to verify 9.0 tomorrow. I hope I can use >>> jhalfs >>> correctly and my 16-core workstation will work fine. But I can't guarantee >>> any >>> success. >>> >> >> If you need anything, please tell me. I think a full blfs can be built by >> editing at most 30 scripts, most notably: > > I failed. Either I misused jhalfs or it has a bug. I got some "Error 2" from > make and was able to "fix" some of them. But at last I can't continue > anymore. >
At which stage did it fail? make in the jhalfs dir or make in packages? I'm sorry about the doc. I do not work much on it. Roger Koehler gave the necessary bits. I do not know what to add without knowing where it failed. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
