I don't know if this is a LFS or ALFS problem so I'm sending it to both.
When downloading the sources to a clean system, I got:
texinfo-4.8-multibyte-1.patch not match MD5SUMS value
The MD5SUMS file has 05046c0337140242234686da009d6493
Running locally has 6cb5b760cfdd2dd53a0430eb572a8aaa
The
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I don't know if this is a LFS or ALFS problem so I'm sending it to both.
When downloading the sources to a clean system, I got:
texinfo-4.8-multibyte-1.patch not match MD5SUMS value
The MD5SUMS file has 05046c0337140242234686da009d6493
Running locally has
On 4/30/06, Andrew Benton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
Yes, glibc has support for its syscalls, but the LLH headers do not, and
AFAIK glibc doesn't install headers for it; userspace programs
On 4/30/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do the same thing, but with sql, but always considered it hint
material at best (and I never got around to writing the hint). BTW, Dan,
I've not looked at the wiki yet, but there is a patch to make SASL
understand md5 and sha1 hashed passwords.
On 5/2/06, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/30/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:36:01PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
If no one is against this, I will add ed to the required dependencies of
Xorg.
Aaak! Wouldn't a sed to use sed be preferred? Why
On 4/28/06, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Working with the Tcl update and trying to go ahead and simplify the
instructions and use the 'make install-private-headers' target. For
some background, visit http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1897
snip
3. This ugly sed will
At last, I'm *really* subscribed from this address, so I'll have
another go at trying to send this :)
Now that we have maintenance of the stable kernel, I think we
should point people to the latest incremental release of the same
kernel version. So, if we release a book with 2.6.16.12 and
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 04:39:28PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
At last, I'm *really* subscribed from this address, so I'll have
another go at trying to send this :)
Now that we have maintenance of the stable kernel, I think we
should point people to the latest incremental release of the same
Ken Moffat wrote:
(ii.) Because the changes are tiny, I assume SBU and space
measurements can be carried forward - I think the figures for
2.6.16.5 were mine, in which case they are accurate for that version
on my machine with my .config but may have only a glancing relevance
to your
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:03:42AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
At some point, we need to freeze the kernel, just like every other
package. Users are free to upgrade to the latest of any package of
course, but we need a constant platform for testing. The best way to
test, IMO, is via building
El Martes, 2 de Mayo de 2006 02:01, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
Also, here's an svn diff of the source files so you can see what I did
with the XIncludes. Manuel is this good enough, or do you have a better
idea?
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/sanity-checks.diff
The method used is not
M.Canales.es wrote:
The method used is not very elegant. That dummy sect2 are hugly in both the
XML and the HTML output code (the output look is good).
Yeah I know. :/
I think that will be best to use a similar method that the one used in CLFS.
That will allow us to insert/remove paras or
Archaic wrote:
New features are often added or at least heavily modified
from 2.6.xx.y to 2.6.xx.y+1.
Really? Care to give me an example? While I know the above is
intentionally true for 2.6.x - 2.6.x+1 changes, I can't remember having
seen any new features or anything else that wasn't a
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I have to agree with Bryan on this one. Half the reason that the
headers in include/{linux,asm} are static is because you want to
advertise the same set of kernel interfaces to userspace programs that
your C libraries are aware of.
Isn't it up to the glibc headers to say
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:03:42AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I think you are using the term 'stable release' in slightly different
ways. In one place you mention 2.6.x.y - 2.6.x.y+1 and another 2.6.x.y
- 2.6.x+1 and treat them slightly differently. From what I understand,
both are
I don't currently run anything that requires or even can use inotify
(that I'm aware of), but I need to test the inotify patch for inclusion
in the book. If anyone can provide me a simple method of testing (I'm
leaning towards dovecot) that also tests it accurately, I'd appreciate
it. I'd like to
On 5/2/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't currently run anything that requires or even can use inotify
(that I'm aware of), but I need to test the inotify patch for inclusion
in the book. If anyone can provide me a simple method of testing (I'm
leaning towards dovecot) that also tests
Thanks for the info, Dan. I forgot to ask (and it's OT according to the
subject line), but do you have some advice about testing the new
syscalls, or better yet, does anyone see a need to include the new
syscalls?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:19:41AM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
From: Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:19:27 -0700
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Subject: Re: modprobe bug for aliases with regular expressions
On Fri,
Here's a simple program to test with archaic.
http://freshmeat.net/redir/inotify-tools/63227/url_tgz/inotify-tools-1.4.tar.gz
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 5/2/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the info, Dan. I forgot to ask (and it's OT according to the
subject line), but do you have some advice about testing the new
syscalls, or better yet, does anyone see a need to include the new
syscalls?
Maybe Greg will chime in if he's
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:50:58PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
Here's a simple program to test with archaic.
Thanks Jim. :)
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
Archaic wrote:
or better yet, does anyone see a need to include the new syscalls?
I'm surprised this question has been asked. It's Glibc FAQ material:
http://sources.redhat.com/glibc/glibc-faq.html#s-1.8
And for an explanation with more details, pls see here:
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 10:10:29AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:03:42AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
At some point, we need to freeze the kernel, just like every other
package. Users are free to upgrade to the latest of any package of
course, but we need a constant
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:44:43PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
If I'm reading you correctly, that is a pity. 2.6.16.13 is out now
with one fix:
NETFILTER: SCTP conntrack: fix infinite loop (CVE-2006-1527)
I still say that while the -stable team is updating the kernel
version we have
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:06:24PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
It is a no-brainer. The problem is in that they don't seem to do much
testing. They spit out versions left and right instead of slowing down a
bit, doing some testing, and then releasing. Obviously some like the new
release method
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:07:49AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
At the moment, we seem happy to let people stick with the kernel they
built when they built LFS.
I don't understand. We don't control what a user does. We give a build
recipe, throw in some educational material, give guidelines on
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 06:22:49PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:07:49AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
At the moment, we seem happy to let people stick with the kernel they
built when they built LFS.
I don't understand. We don't control what a user does. We give a build
I can't recall this being discussed before, but if so just say so and we
can just press on.
When looking at the grub install we do: ./configure --prefix=/usr
This puts the executables in /usr/sbin. Do we really want grub's
executables there or in /sbin? Grub seems like something that an admin
On 5/2/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. There is no stable 2.6 upstream kernel. That is intentional.
The 4th dotted increment (since the 3rd is patchlevel, what is the 4th
called? micro?) means nothing to kernel devs anymore. It is not just for
bug fixes. New features are often
Hey Guys,
When the devs update a package, they'll have to go upstream and get said
package first and test it out before committing anyway. It would be very
convenient for jhalfs (and for Justin as FTP mirror maintainer?) to keep
a list of correct md5sums in the actual LFS book as well.
The
Greg Schafer wrote:
The bottom line is that you absolutely want your Glibc to be aware of
new kernel syscalls otherwise there isn't a hope in hell of them ever
being called by Glibc, even if you upgrade your kernel or user apps
at a later date.
Yes. However, do you necessarily need to have
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:14:08PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Would anyone mind if we kept an MD5SUMS file in the book's repo?
Yes, but only because I would rather see it in the book proper now that
we are pointing to specific tarballs. If you put them in general.ent
with the version
Archaic wrote:
Yes, but only because I would rather see it in the book proper now that
we are pointing to specific tarballs. If you put them in general.ent
with the version entities, it would make it rather difficult to forget
to update them, too! :)
Sure... make it more useful than I meant
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I can't recall this being discussed before, but if so just say so and we
can just press on.
When looking at the grub install we do: ./configure --prefix=/usr
This puts the executables in /usr/sbin. Do we really want grub's
executables there or in /sbin? Grub seems like
Archaic wrote:
Can you grab
http://downloads.linuxfromscratch.org/udev-config-20060430.tar.bz2
and check it out. Especially the rules you say are Suse-specific. If
Jim hasn't said anything by the time you reply, please tell me
specifically which lines to remove. Thanks!
There are some points
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I can't recall this being discussed before, but if so just say so and we
can just press on.
When looking at the grub install we do: ./configure --prefix=/usr
This puts the executables in /usr/sbin. Do we really want grub's
executables there or in
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Archaic wrote:
Yes, but only because I would rather see it in the book proper now that
we are pointing to specific tarballs. If you put them in general.ent
with the version entities, it would make it rather difficult to forget
to update them, too! :)
Sure... make it
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
At first I thought you wanted to put a file in the repository, but not i
n the book. Now you want to put them in the book? Where? On pages 3.2
and 3.3?
Originally I did just want a separate file to be included with the
book's source. But, after Archaic reminded me that
There is a warning towards the end of the Shadow instructions saying
that you should try to login and su to verify that it works with PAM so
that you can be sure you will be able to log on to your system.
Shouldn't the same suggestion apply if simply rebuilding Shadow with
Cracklib support?
+= to NAME=).
I take it you are referring to:
SUBSYSTEM==usb_device, PROGRAM=/bin/sh -c 'X=%k X=$${X#usbdev} B=$${X.*}
D=$${X#*.}; echo bus/usb/$$B/$$D', NAME=%c
I put it at the beginning of the USB section.
The new tarball is here:
http://downloads.linuxfromscratch.org/udev-config-20060502
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
The current problem I'm encountering with jhalfs is that if a package
gets updated in the book, there's a gap in between the time the
repository is updated and the MD5SUMS file on Justin's server reflects
the change which makes downloading difficult.
That makes sense.
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 12:24:57AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
Also (the reason why I'm CC'ing LFS-dev) has anyone considered that
something like this should be mentioned in LFS as well? There should be
more emphasis on the passwd root command, saying that this is not only
a good idea to
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 12:11:53AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Originally I did just want a separate file to be included with the
book's source. But, after Archaic reminded me that we actually link
directly to the packages now, it seems like a good idea to include the
info in
Archaic wrote:
Pam can be a bear if you aren't careful. I've never heard of shadow
locking root out due to a configuration or compilation error, but PAM is
well-known for it (though granted it is generally user error).
The most common problem (which does break break shadow) on the support
and
the firmware one to 27-firmware.rules. Of course, this is still POC
stuff and the layout is still forming.
I would just like to add a note here. I just brought up my 20060502
system on my laptop for the first time and got several errors from
25-lfs.rules. Upon investigation, they had to do with scsi
On 5/3/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
snip
As a related issue, but perhaps off topic, does anyone know how to
reduce the number of tty devices? My system shows tty0..tty63 and I
don't think I need nearly that many.
I
47 matches
Mail list logo
