#2133: Coreutils-6.10
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |        Owner:  [email protected]
     Type:  enhancement                   |       Status:  new                  
        
 Priority:  normal                        |    Milestone:  7.0                  
        
Component:  Book                          |      Version:  SVN                  
        
 Severity:  normal                        |   Resolution:                       
        
 Keywords:                                |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):

 Replying to [comment:11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 > Replying to [comment:10 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 > > Replying to [comment:9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 > >
 > > >  No arguments that util-linux-ng would be the proper place, but
 google knows nothing about any intention to put hostname.c there.
 > >
 > > Thread starts at  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-
 coreutils/2007-07/msg00154.html and continues at
 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-08/msg00112.html.
 > >
 > > Doesn't look like anything ever got committed in util-linux-ng
 upstream though.  I'll chase them up later on today.
 >
 >  Thanks for the links.  In the meantime, and subject to a complete build
 actually working, I'd like to see 6.10 in the book.  How about adding the
 following version of hostname ''at the end of procps, which is where
 sysctl is installed'' ?
 >
 > {{{
 > cat >/bin/hostname <<EOF
 > #!/bin/sh
 > if [ \$# -gt 0 ]; then
 >         sysctl -q -w kernel.hostname=\$1
 > else
 >         uname -n
 > fi
 > EOF
 > chmod -m 0755 /bin/hostname
 > }}}

 I'd prefer hostname to be installed during util-linux-ng, assuming nothing
 in the build depends on it.  That way, if/when util-linux-ng get release
 an upstream version, we just remove it at the same time as the version
 bump, without touching other packages.

 >  I need to do more testing on the coreutils build before I start a full
 system build, I had some odd errors yesterday (e.g. invocation of
 autotools, which failed at the lzma identifier), and it appeared to not
 install arch even though I had not mentioned it in my override of
 --enable-no-install-program.

 I've not tested the syntax for --enable-no-install-program out yet, but do
 remember seeing some emails flying around regarding whether it was a
 space-separated or comma-separated list.

 I'd like to see 6.10 in the book too.  To that end, I think we should
 proceed with a modified Fedora version of the i18n patch, `hostname'
 script added on to util-linux-ng's page, and the mktemp package removed.
 I'd appreciate it if you could find the time to test that combination out
 Ken.  If not, I'll certainly get around to it at some point.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2133#comment:12>
LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/>
Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules.
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to