DJ Lucas wrote:
> 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.
Ugh...one more correction...your build may choke because of it. The
symlink for libmawt should be:
ln -sf ${JAVA
Robert Connolly wrote:
> On April 27, 2005 12:20 am, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>>Robert, please also see the thread 'OpenOffice bug in BZ' for
>>an additional patch.
>
>
> I found openoffice.org-1.9.69.doublefree.patch and renamed it to
> OOo_1.1.4-doublefree.patch so the blfs instructions should work
On April 27, 2005 12:20 am, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Robert, please also see the thread 'OpenOffice bug in BZ' for
> an additional patch.
I found openoffice.org-1.9.69.doublefree.patch and renamed it to
OOo_1.1.4-doublefree.patch so the blfs instructions should work with it. It
doesn't need to be redif
Robert Connolly wrote:
> BTW, the md5sum from the blfs repo and anduin for
> OOo_1.1.4-jdk_1.5.0_fix-1.patch do not match. The date/timestamp in the diff
> is different, that's all.
>
> robert
On it. Thanks for all the assistance. :-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Yep... I butchered the SVN properties! I forgot the ':' character after
> '$Date' so that all instances of 'Date' are screwed in that patch. Give
> me about 2 minutes to get a new copy into svn and onto anduin..it'll be
> here in just a few moments...I think I removed some from
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
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
Robert Connolly wrote:
> On April 26, 2005 11:26 pm, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>>Yes I see that. 1.1.4 was a very quick release after 1.1.3. I guess I
>>renamed the patch a long time ago, but it applies with only 2 offset
>>hunks here. Double check those MD5s and please get back to us.
>>
>>Thanks for
On April 26, 2005 11:26 pm, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Yes I see that. 1.1.4 was a very quick release after 1.1.3. I guess I
> renamed the patch a long time ago, but it applies with only 2 offset
> hunks here. Double check those MD5s and please get back to us.
>
> Thanks for checking these out.
>
> -- DJ
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Hi. The patch OOo_1.1.4-gcc_3.4.2+_fixes-1.patch is diff'd against OOo_1.1.3,
> and there are like 100 rejected hunks.. I think this:
> http://mirror.hamakor.org.il/pub/mirrors/gentoo-portage/app-office/openoffice/files/1.1.4/gcc34.patch.bz2
> is the patch it's supposed to
Hi. The patch OOo_1.1.4-gcc_3.4.2+_fixes-1.patch is diff'd against OOo_1.1.3,
and there are like 100 rejected hunks.. I think this:
http://mirror.hamakor.org.il/pub/mirrors/gentoo-portage/app-office/openoffice/files/1.1.4/gcc34.patch.bz2
is the patch it's supposed to be.
Btw, I got jdk installed,
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Hi. I get:
>
> /sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/unpack-cmd/obj/main.o(.text+0xd7c):
>
> In function `.L93':
> main.cpp: undefined reference to `gunzip::init(unpacker*)'
> /sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/lin
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This question mostly directed to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
>
> Is http://blfs-bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1090 still
> a valid bug, or can this one be closed out?
>
Dang it! Well now I remember and that was it. The last time this was
brou
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.linuxf
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
Hi,
Sorry to be missing this last days, the new cross-lfs book was requiring
several XML fixes and XSL improvements. I hope to can start editing BLFS in
one or two days.
Attached is a re-indented template.xml file (compressed to avoid the mail
filter) with the optional "Kernel Config" section
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
robert
--
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/26/05 14:00 CST:
> /sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/unpack-cmd/obj/main.o(.text+0xd7c):
> In function `.L93':
> main.cpp: undefined reference to `gunzip::init(unpacker*)'
> /sources/sun_java/jdk-build/con
Hi. I get:
/sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/unpack-cmd/obj/main.o(.text+0xd7c):
In function `.L93':
main.cpp: undefined reference to `gunzip::init(unpacker*)'
/sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar
Hi all,
This question mostly directed to DJ, and FYI for everyone else.
Is http://blfs-bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1090 still
a valid bug, or can this one be closed out?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release versio
20 matches
Mail list logo
