Re: jdk-1.5.0
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/26/05 14:41 CST: On April 26, 2005 03:13 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote: Because I'm not sure what lfs-unstable is now, could you tell us what version of GCC you're using. I've compiled the JDK-1.5.0 several times on 3 different x86 platforms using GCC-3.4.3 without any issues. gcc-3.4.3, glibc-2.3.5 Thanks for the info, Robert. However, I really don't have anything to help you out with other than to suggest that perhaps you overlooked removing some optimizations? I don't have a clue whether or not the newer Glibc has anything to do with it. Perhaps others have some better information for you. When you do get it figured out, please pass along what you had to do so that when we finish with BLFS-6.1, and target LFS-SVN, we'll know what we need to do. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 14:54:00 up 24 days, 14:27, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
autofs package links broken
Hello. It appears that autofs has released a new version (4.1.4) and have subsequently moved the 4.1.3 package to the http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/autofs/v4/old directory breaking the links on the stable and daily snapshot versions. I created a bug report for this http://blfs-bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1322 mainly because I didn't know whether you preferred that over a posting here. Cheers, Jay Tennier -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: OpenOffice bug in BZ
DJ Lucas wrote: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=40937 And yes the doublefree patch works. But I forgot to update the build size and times...so guess what?!?! Yes another complete @$%^%$ build. ;-) Update coming soon. Robert, you might want to put that patch in place as well if you are following this thread. Only a little offset from the version posted earlier. I'll post in the other thread for you just in case. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice
BTW, the md5sum from the blfs repo and anduin for OOo_1.1.4-jdk_1.5.0_fix-1.patch do not match. The date/timestamp in the diff is different, that's all. robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice
Robert Connolly wrote: BTW, the md5sum from the blfs repo and anduin for OOo_1.1.4-jdk_1.5.0_fix-1.patch do not match. The date/timestamp in the diff is different, that's all. robert On it. Thanks for all the assistance. :-) -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: openoffice
Robert Connolly wrote: On April 27, 2005 12:20 am, DJ Lucas wrote: Robert, please also see the thread 'OpenOffice bug in BZ' for an additional patch. I found openoffice.org-1.9.69.doublefree.patch and renamed it to OOo_1.1.4-doublefree.patch so the blfs instructions should work with it. It doesn't need to be rediffed. After the 8 patches, I ran 'find . -name *.rej' and it was clear. robert I kinda guess the rejected hunks won't matter...unless there are changes within a few lines of the cvs headers. I have the broken one so the needed changes to bring it back to the BLFS spec (with propsets in svn) shoud be easy as Robert has shown above. Robert you're in the ballpark now. Again, I am so very sorry for the mishaps. Thanks again for the help. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
