Re: Wording for configuring perl in ch6
Andrew Benton wrote: snip I agree, but people tell me it's wrong to start sentences with however and but because they're linking words It's a perfectly legal sentence. In school, we used to call sentences that started like this spoilers. I don't remember school a lot, but I do remember working on these sentences in English. We wouldn't have done exercises with them if it wasn't acceptable to use them. -- Registered LFS User 6929 Registered Linux User 298182 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 64-bit LFS
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I just got a new system for testing LFS builds. It is a Intel 3.2GHz P4 system with EM64T technology. It came with RH Enterprise 3.0 for AMD64 and EM64T preinstalled. 8-D I'm not really sure what the EM64T technology does, except Googling around seems to indicate that there is something about allowing more than 4G memory (32 address bits?). uname -a gives: Linux lfs5 2.4.21-15.EL #1 SMP Thu Apr 22 00:09:47 EDT 2004 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I believe there may be internal kernel differences in _how_ things work, particularly for addressing high memory, but with any recent 2.6 kernel it should just work. Linuxhardware did a comparison back in February: http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1747228 Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Managed hotplug events
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: When the modified udev bootscript sets /sbin/udevsend as a handler, everything is ready. I thought the necessary changes had already got into the bootscripts repository. If not, please submit a bug report to bugzilla, preferably with a patch too. Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Wording for configuring perl in ch6
Joel Miller wrote: We wouldn't have done exercises with them if it wasn't acceptable to use them. So are you telling me that all those Visual Basic exercises I did means it's actually acceptable to use in the real world? :) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
LFS News Server
Hi all: Posting this to the main lists so that all can see. As you're likely aware, there has been some trouble lately with our news server here. As of Wednesday, we had the server back online and the mail news gateway was working effectively. However, the news mail gateway was still not functioning properly for all lists. In order that as few postings as possible are lost, at least for the time being, the news lists have been made read only. If you want to post to a list, you can still do so via email at the corresponding list address. Apologies for any trouble this may cause, but hopefully you'll agree that this is better than having lost posts that show up on the newslists, but are not reflected in the mailman archives or to email-only subscribers. -- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Wording for configuring perl in ch6
TheOldFellow wrote: However, even in American these are just guidelines. But real English uses rule-breaking quite regularly for emphasis and contrast. LOL, thanks Richard :) I was also taught that conjunctions shouldn't be used at the start of sentences. Often, it seems the most natural way of writing, as anything else often forces a break in the flow of sentences, or leads to overly long sentences. Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release?
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:43:44PM -0700, Archaic wrote: With the exception of the kernel changing every week, this book seems rock solid. Add to that the 5 months since lfs-6 was release and it seems it might be time to cut a testing branch? Opinions? I think it's ready to go as well. It would nicely bring it all up-to-date and fix a few bugs, notably, the strip bug and the 2.6.8.1 cd-writing bug. I'd like to see a release happen now. -- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release?
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:55:18PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: I mentioned this same thing at the beginning of this month. I have several systems running current SVN versions of LFS without any issues I can think of. Sorry for not replying to the OP - it got lost in the recent news-server outage. Right, let's do a 6.1. If nothing else it'll prove to be a solid base off of which to base our more ambitious plans of mulit-arch and cross-lfs work. I'll set up the branch tonight and call for testers and build reports once it's available. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release?
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/01/05 11:12 CST: I think it's ready to go as well. It would nicely bring it all up-to-date and fix a few bugs, notably, the strip bug and the 2.6.8.1 cd-writing bug. I'd like to see a release happen now. Probably best to delay it for a while, as a brand new release of the bootscripts was introduced to LFS a couple of days ago. These bootscripts probably should be tested out before releasing a version which includes them. Opinions? -- 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] 11:14:00 up 29 days, 21:18, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release?
Randy McMurchy wrote: Probably best to delay it for a while, as a brand new release of the bootscripts was introduced to LFS a couple of days ago. These bootscripts probably should be tested out before releasing a version which includes them. Opinions? That's what the branch is for :) I'm thinking of a two-week 'soak' period, to see if there are any issues people haven't run in to yet (bootscripts) or simply haven't reported. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release?
Randy McMurchy wrote: Probably best to delay it for a while, as a brand new release of the bootscripts was introduced to LFS a couple of days ago. These bootscripts probably should be tested out before releasing a version which includes them. Opinions? The changes to the bootscripts seemed minimal, (the new release was mostly just to get sysklogd back in) and as Matt just posted as well, likely a testing phase before release would go through. I think that should prove enough time to test the latest version of the scripts. -- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Banned file: .exe in mail from you
BANNED FILENAME ALERT Your message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] was blocked by our Spam Firewall. The email you sent with the following subject has NOT BEEN DELIVERED: Subject: Re: Its me An attachment in that mail was of a file type that the Spam Firewall is set to block. Reporting-MTA: dns; barracuda.timesgroup.com Received-From-MTA: smtp; barracuda.timesgroup.com ([127.0.0.1]) Arrival-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:35:23 +0530 (IST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; magicresume@timesgroup.com Action: failed Status: 5.7.1 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 Message content rejected, id=05659-01-11 - BANNED: .exe Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:35:23 +0530 (IST) Received: from timesgroup.com (unknown [61.1.8.77]) by barracuda.timesgroup.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 23562D05055E for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:35:03 +0530 (IST) From: lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Its me Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:35:36 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary==_NextPart_000_0016=_NextPart_000_0016 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Iptables/Firewall
In response to a post on BLFS support I looked at the pages in my current version of BLFS (svn-20050331) and I can't see where it says to install the iptables bootscript. Is it just me, or is this a bug in the book? Whilst I'm here on iptables business, in the personal firewall script it sets the rule iptables -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT which as the comment says, is the same as setting the output policy to ACCEPT, but in the same script it also explicitly sets iptables -P OUTPUT DROP which sets the output policy to DROP. Is that not a contradiction? Either the policy is accept or it is drop. As the script is for a standalone machine, it's hard to see how the output policy can be set to drop. How can you filter packets coming from the machine? Either you trust the situations good and allow packets out, or...well I dread to think. Would it not make more sense to just set the one rule iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
6.1 release branch
Folks, I've just created the 6.1 release branch. For the incredibly impatient you can pull it from svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/branches/6.1. Until then, you'll have to wait until I render the book and post a link to it :) The idea is that in roughly 2 weeks we'll release 6.1. So, can everyone please hammer this one to death and report all problems to this list and preferably also to bugzilla so we can keep track of them. Editors: Please *do not* commit to this branch unless: a) It's an obvious typo/spelling mistake b) It fixes a problem reported against the 6.1 branch either on the mailing lists or bugzilla c) The fix has already been applied to trunk/, and therefore the fix is just an 'svn merge' of the exact same change back onto this branch. Regards, Matt. PS: SBUs, disk usage and package tarball size reports would be most welcome, from anyone with the necessary scripts to record them. I think the upgraded packages should be pretty accurate, but I've not done a full system build with them yet, so I don't think all stats are up-to-date. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
Matthew Burgess wrote: Folks, I've just created the 6.1 release branch. For the incredibly impatient you can pull it from svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/branches/6.1. Until then, you'll have to wait until I render the book and post a link to it :) The idea is that in roughly 2 weeks we'll release 6.1. So, can everyone please hammer this one to death and report all problems to this list and preferably also to bugzilla so we can keep track of them. Editors: Please *do not* commit to this branch unless: a) It's an obvious typo/spelling mistake b) It fixes a problem reported against the 6.1 branch either on the mailing lists or bugzilla c) The fix has already been applied to trunk/, and therefore the fix is just an 'svn merge' of the exact same change back onto this branch. Cool. Now, can we get a overview of where we're headed next? Just would like to see it listed somewhere for reference. ;) -- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
Matthew Burgess escribió en lfs.dev el Viernes, 1 de Abril de 2005 20:22: Editors: Please *do not* commit to this branch unless: a) It's an obvious typo/spelling mistake b) It fixes a problem reported against the 6.1 branch either on the mailing lists or bugzilla c) The fix has already been applied to trunk/, and therefore the fix is just an 'svn merge' of the exact same change back onto this branch. d) Is a PDF look fix ;-) I will start that work the day 9 (I'm very busy at this moment doing the BLFS-6.0 translation). -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
M.Canales.es wrote: d) Is a PDF look fix ;-) Of course. I will trust anything from anyone (as long as their name is Manuel :)) that touches stuff in the stylesheets/ directory as there is some serious black-magic juju going on in there :) However, rule c) still applies - i.e. if the fix is common to both trunk and the 6.1 branch, then trunk gets the fix first and it gets merged to the branch afterwards. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[OT]Re: LFS News Server
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: If you want to post to a list, you can still do so via email at the corresponding list address. Is there a way to configure Thunderbird to set the recipient automatically for me? I prefer to use the news server, but can accept that keeping it read-only is probably the best way forward (at least for now). If I respond to a post it wants to send to the news server though, and I can't see an intuitive option for overriding that. Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Wording for configuring perl in ch6
Matthew Burgess wrote: Joel Miller wrote: We wouldn't have done exercises with them if it wasn't acceptable to use them. So are you telling me that all those Visual Basic exercises I did means it's actually acceptable to use in the real world? :) toucher -- Registered LFS User 6929 Registered Linux User 298182 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Post-6.1 plans/roadmap
Folks, Now that the 6.1 cycle has started, here's what's on the cards for future LFS releases. Whether these make it all into the same release, or whether they're staggered over multiple releases depends on how quickly they can stabilise and the amount of development and testing resources available. Anyway, here's the list: * Multi-arch support, i.e. officially supporting more than just x86. We currently have a branch underway for this, masterfully headed by Jim Gifford. IIRC, it's pretty stable already, so a merge could happen soon. * Cross-build support, i.e. being able to build from non-Linux hosts, and building from one architecture to run on a different architecture. There's some notes on the Wiki for this, and Ryan Oliver's cross-lfs scripts act as a good starting point. I've been promising to set up a branch for this stuff too...soon...honest :) * GCC-4.0 - 4.0.0 is currently scheduled for April 15th. There's some interesting changes for us (like they went and removed our beloved spec file!) as well as compile and execution time speedups and the usual bunch of bug fixes. There's also currently issues with glibc, and in all likelihood BLFS will be affected by this quite a lot, as the compiler has once again got a bit stricter in what code it'll accept. Bug #1062 suggests a branch for this work, and though I'd tend to agree, it'll in all likelihood be a pretty short-lived one. * Slimming down of the /etc/passwd and /etc/group files and related changes to the LFS book (mainly udev) and BLFS book. If I've missed anything off this list, or you have an idea that you've been keeping to yourself, then now's the time to hit us with it :) Cheers, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
Matthew Burgess wrote: I've just created the 6.1 release branch. For the incredibly impatient you can pull it from For testers, I just put together a 6.1-20050401 package tarball. It will be available on the mirrors shortly, as soon as they all sync. -- Justin R. Knierim LFS FTP Mirror -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 64-bit LFS
On Mar 31, 2005 10:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got a new system for testing LFS builds. It is a Intel 3.2GHz P4 system with EM64T technology. It came with RH Enterprise 3.0 for AMD64 and EM64T preinstalled. I'm not really sure what the EM64T technology does, except Googling around seems to indicate that there is something about allowing more than 4G memory (32 address bits?). uname -a gives: Linux lfs5 2.4.21-15.EL #1 SMP Thu Apr 22 00:09:47 EDT 2004 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Has anyone looked at this type of system for LFS? Since the RH version has a 2.4.21 kernel, I intend to use the LFS CD which does boot just fine. Any suggestions or comments will be appreciated. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page EM64T is Intel's version of AMD's AMD64/x86_64 system. They are compatible with each other (for the most part at least). I think that the Intel chips don't have as much of a 64 bit instruction set, but mostly just have the ability to handle more memory. I may be wrong though. Anyways, for LFS you can either use x86, which should run fine, or the x86_64/AMD64 info that has been popping up should work as well if you want to build a 64bit system. As far as kernel goes, I think there are some improvements for this chip in 2.6 kernels over what 2.4 contains. Again, I'm mostly guessing off of what I recall from a long time ago. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
Matthew Burgess wrote: Until then, you'll have to wait until I render the book and post a link to it :) OK, it's now rendered and available at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Wording for configuring perl in ch6
Matthew Burgess wrote: I was also taught that conjunctions shouldn't be used at the start of sentences. But you can. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
Matthew Burgess wrote: The idea is that in roughly 2 weeks we'll release 6.1. So, can everyone please hammer this one to death and report all problems to this list and preferably also to bugzilla so we can keep track of them. Two issues I've seen so far: 1) The URL for less may not be right. Less-382 is not available at http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/download.html -- I Googled and found it at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/less/ instead. Less-381 was available at greenwoodsoftware.com, just not 382. 2) The note in section 5.1 about patches may be correct, but it doesn't match what I usually do. The sentences in question: Warning messages about /offset/ or /fuzz/ may also be encountered when applying a patch. Do not worry about these warnings, as the patch was still successfully applied. I usually ignore warnings about offsets (offsets just mean the patch's context has moved), but I try to fix warnings about fuzz (which means patch had to actually *discard* some lines of context to find a match). I had one bad experience with a kernel patch that applied with fuzz a long time ago -- the patched kernel failed to compile. Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought I'd mention it. If I run into other issues, I'll post them then. I've just finished compiling binutils pass 1 (yes, by hand, I have a whole weekend ;-) ). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Post-6.1 plans/roadmap
Matthew Burgess wrote: * GCC-4.0 - 4.0.0 is currently scheduled for April 15th. There's some interesting changes for us (like they went and removed our beloved spec file!) as well as compile and execution time speedups and the usual bunch of bug fixes. There's also currently issues with glibc, and in all likelihood BLFS will be affected by this quite a lot, as the compiler has once again got a bit stricter in what code it'll accept. Bug #1062 suggests a branch for this work, and though I'd tend to agree, it'll in all likelihood be a pretty short-lived one. In case anyone is interested, I have a GCC4 based build working really well. There are still a few rough edges and the GCC devs are still fixing bugs even as we speak (GCC4 would crash while compiling Psmisc - the fix only went into GCC CVS a few hours ago). Anyhoo, here are the details: http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2005-March/000491.html Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
Bryan Kadzban wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: The idea is that in roughly 2 weeks we'll release 6.1. So, can everyone please hammer this one to death and report all problems to this list and preferably also to bugzilla so we can keep track of them. Two issues I've seen so far: 1) The URL for less may not be right. Less-382 is not available at http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/download.html -- I Googled and found it at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/less/ instead. Archaic pointed out to me on IRC that less-382 *is* actually on the greenwoodsoftware.com site, it's just not listed on the download page. This link should work: http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/less-382.tar.gz But it does raise the question in my mind at least, about which link should be included. Gnu.org in my experience is easy to navigate, consistent, fast and reliable. What do you all think? I've got the book ready to change if it's deemed that gnu.org is the better link. -- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.1 release branch
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:04:21PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/less-382.tar.gz The book doesn't use explicit links to packages. GNU should be used, IMO. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
This is LFS
diy-linux.org/pipermail/ Regards Greg -- Excuse me, but this is the Linux From Scratch project development list. sash -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Post-6.1 plans/roadmap
gcc4 segfaults fairly easily still. I don't see how they're going to stabilize it in the next two weeks. Using -O3/-finline-functions on glibc causes a segfault from gcc4, its fixed in the rhl branch weeks ago but the 4.0 branch has yet to include the fix. Passing -funroll-loops to vim63 causes another segfault, this one isn't fixed yet but is related to several other bug reports. I'm sure there are plenty more bugs I don't know about yet. robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Managed hotplug events
(sorry, something is wrong again with the news server, thus the private CC:) Matthew Burgess wrote: Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: When the modified udev bootscript sets /sbin/udevsend as a handler, everything is ready. I thought the necessary changes had already got into the bootscripts repository. If not, please submit a bug report to bugzilla, preferably with a patch too. You are right, most of changes are already done. What remains is reported at: http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1068 -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Managed hotplug events
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: What remains is reported at: http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1068 Many thanks Alexander. Those don't seem too risky to get into 6.1, or are they? They certainly seem much closer to bug fixes than introducing new functionality. Cheers, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Post-6.1 plans/roadmap
Greg Schafer wrote: In case anyone is interested, I have a GCC4 based build working really well. Did they get the fixincludes in there to allow building from a host with a stock glibc-2.3.4 install on it - i.e. they fix the invalid C in pthread.h? If not, then we'll have to wait until at least after we have a suitably fixed glibc install (either via us patching it ourselves, or using an upstream release with the fix in it). Cheers, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
