1. At the end of the Editors section, there is a page for Others
Editors - this should be Other Editors.
2. For most packages it says to Install [package] by running the
following commands: followed by Now, as the root user:. It would be
more accurate to say Build [package] by running the
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
3. A few package instructions say Run the following command[s]. -
ending with a period instead of a colon, which I think would be more
grammatical correct. I don't even know how important this is, but I
thought I'd point it out anyway. :)
It would be nice to point out which
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/01/05 12:18 CST:
And in copying-and-pasting that line I just noticed there are
2 spaces between root and user...
I don't see this when I copy and paste. And, actually, it is
almost impossible for the HTML to contain multiple spaces in the
regular text
This is for the trunk and 6.1 branches. In the Installation section, the line
sh INSTALL
should be
sh install.sh
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/01/05 12:35 CST:
This is for the trunk and 6.1 branches. In the Installation section, the line
sh INSTALL
should be
sh install.sh
Hmmm. I don't see this error. In my installation the INSTALL file is
the only one in the directory. I don't even have
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Chris Staub wrote:
1. At the end of the Editors section, there is a page for Others
Editors - this should be Other Editors.
Fixed. Thanks.
2. For most packages it says to Install [package] by running the
following commands: followed by Now, as the root user:. It would
On 8/1/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/01/05 12:35 CST:
This is for the trunk and 6.1 branches. In the Installation section, the
line
sh INSTALL
should be
sh install.sh
Hmmm. I don't see this error. In my installation the
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Chris Staub wrote:
2. For most packages it says to Install [package] by running the
following commands: followed by Now, as the root user:. It would be
more accurate to say Build [package] by running the following
commands: and Now, as the root user, install [package]:.
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/01/05 12:52 CST:
Sorry for the noise, I installed version 1.69.x instead of 1.68.x.
Guess they changed the script name? Will look into it later.
They may have. Docbook packages have weird filenames sometimes as
they used to try to be compatible with old
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/01/05 12:53 CST:
I just thought of this...I know that the whole section is supposed to be
about installing the package, but there is already a large Installation
of [package] heading above the section - it seems a bit redundant. The
heading makes it
El Lunes, 1 de Agosto de 2005 21:03, Tushar Teredesai escribió:
ill be released 1.69.1.
Damn, I have to downgrade.
I wish maintainers would start having version numbers that made sense :(
In the RELEASE-NOTES.txt file:
As with all DocBook Project dot zero releases, this is an experimental
Randy McMurchy wrote:
However, I think you misunderstood
the purpose of my message.
No. I understood it completely, I was just making sure you knew about
the link while I thought some more about your ideas. :-)
I'm not so much looking for advice on *how* to get things to build,
I'm more
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/01/05 14:08 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
One idea I have is to create a GCC4 branch of BLFS and as packages
are confirmed (or instructions updated to work) they are added into
this branch.
That sounds like a good plan to me. Whatever you guys decide to
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I wish maintainers would start having version numbers that made sense :(
They do, Tush. They all make complete sense to the various maintainers
:) In all fairness, at least the DocBook-XSL maintainers state that .0
releases are unstable:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 08/01/05 14:20 CST:
If I understood your plan 'a placeholder in place of the real
instructions' in a branch, then many, probably working, packages will be
ommitted. Of course, a user could just nip over to 6.1, but why make
him bother. Can't we do a
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/01/05 14:21 CST:
It wil be fine to create a branch for gcc-4.0, but we must also maintain
gcc3 instructions. I believe that LFS 6.2 is still going to be gcc3 based.
Right. That's why I felt a branch was best in this case. We can create
GCC-4.x instructions
Wrong list!
-- Bruce
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, BLFS 6.1-pre1 is on line at:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.1/
The tarball is at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/6.1/blfs-book-6.1-html.tar.bz2
The 6.1 patches and bootscripts are in place in the same directory.
Hi
It might be worth mentioning that Qt can be built using precompiled headers
to speed up the build. PCH became available in GCC-3.4.x. I just did some
rough testing on a box here and the savings are substantial:
- without PCH 37m12.245s
- with PCH 22m37.763s
Simply add `-pch'
On 8/1/05, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Based on my past experience with gcc upgrade, I plan to stay away from
gcc-4.x till a 4.1 release :-) So a branch sounds good to me.
Tushar, you're at least the second person I know of that's stated the
same
The Beyond Linux From Scratch (BLFS) Team is pleased to announce the
release of BLFS 6.1 Prerelease 1. This book is the complement to Linux
From Scratch 6.1 and provides build and installation instructions for
over 360 Open Source packages, including X Windows, KDE, and Gnome.
The book can be
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/01/05 17:47 CST:
I was more worried about pacakes that won't compile with gcc-4.x or
worse will 'mis-compile'.
Oh, that's no problem. Just make sure the griddle is hot enough
and you don't over-mix the batter. Makes perfect pancakes every time!
Uh
On 8/1/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/01/05 17:47 CST:
I was more worried about pacakes that won't compile with gcc-4.x or
worse will 'mis-compile'.
Oh, that's no problem. Just make sure the griddle is hot enough
and you don't
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/01/05 18:04 CST:
Looks like someone is hungry :) Time for a snack.
Sigh
And here I was thinking that *everyone* knows who Emily Littela is.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/01/05 18:09 CST:
Sigh
And here I was thinking that *everyone* knows who Emily Littela is.
Misspelled her name. Emily Litella.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
Don't know how you want to handle this during package freeze, but
compress::zlib is updated to 1.35 to match the recent zlib-1.2.3
fixes.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
Archaic wrote these words on 08/01/05 21:52 CST:
Don't know how you want to handle this during package freeze, but
compress::zlib is updated to 1.35 to match the recent zlib-1.2.3
fixes.
Sounds to me like it needs to be fixed. Thanks for tip.
I'm on it.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version
26 matches
Mail list logo
