On 8/4/07, Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On 8/2/07, Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've started to rebuild my linux box with 6.3-rc1 (Forgive me, this > >> email comes from my xp box.). > > > > Anyway, would you please try using the snapshot of the 6.3 branch that > > I created? > > > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.3-branch/ > > > I've finished building my new lfs as per the book above. I didn't find > any major problems.
Thanks for the help. > I just found a couple of minor things. > > 1. Section 6.12, p. 4. The link to the gcc build log is broken. That's partially a temporary thing. I suppose I should have copied the build logs, but for now you can view some here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/development/ But it looks like the 6.3-rc1 directory is empty there, too. I'll generate some logs before release, but the link should be fine. > I wonder if that sed is really needed to add -fomit-frame-pointer to the > gcc build. Isn't the final pass compiled with -g -O2, and doesn't > -O-anything imply -fomit-frame-pointer? I'd never noticed that before, but a little experimenting shows that on our dummy C program, this is not true. $ echo 'main(){}' > dummy.c $ gcc -g -O2 -c -o dummy1 dummy.c $ gcc -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -c -o dummy2 dummy.c $ strip --strip-all dummy1 dummy2 $ cmp dummy1 dummy2 dummy1 dummy2 differ: byte 33, line 1 > 2. 6.23, p. 1. A typo in the first paragraph. s/used used/used/'. Thanks. I also reworded it to not be so awkward. How would you like to be referenced in the Changelog? > 3. 7.13.1. A minor point, but the description of the finding in > /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules did not match what I found. > What I found was a single line (other than comments) that assigned a > name (eth0) by MAC address. Also, in this same section there is a typo > (I think). Anyhow, my rule looks like this. > SUBSYSTEM=="net", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTRS{address}=="00:00:00:00:00:00", > NAME="eth0" So, each device gets two lines: a comment description, then a udev rule. So, I guess it should be clearer that the first line is a comment. The rule looks correct and matches the description that I see. All you're missing is an ATTRS{type}, and it's described as optional. Which part exactly doesn't match what you expected? > Good work gentlemen, and thanks for your hard work so that I can learn. Thanks for testing. Feel free to send more comments if you find them. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
