[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:22:47AM -0400, David Fix wrote:
plugIf you use Windows, there's a really nice text editor
(available for Linux also), that's called EditPad Lite... It's
free. It does all sorts of nice stuff, including having a function
for saving in DOS
Archaic wrote:
I see now what you are saying and agree. However, this sort of
information seems most useful to developers and the more
highly advanced
readers. Perhaps a note should be placed in chap5's intro linking to
this advanced information with a caveat that it isn't needed for a
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
In the LFS cleanfs script, we have the construct:
cd /tmp
find . -xdev -mindepth 1 ! -name lost+found \
-delete || failed=1
Since I test build a lot of apps in /tmp, this instruction can take a
very long time upon bootup. Can we change
Dan wrote:
Just a note to both groups that the expect-5.43.0 tarball is back up
at http://expect.nist.gov/ . Here's what the maintainer had to say.
Dan
Sweet. :) Thanks for the followup, Dan. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Jeremy wrote:
I think I have it fixed now. If you all could just verify it for me,
please. Also, has anyone looked at this in Konqueror or
Safari? Curious
if it looks alright in those.
--
JH
Looks great in IE, Jeremy. :) Unfortunately, the box I'm on only has IE 6
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Please watch the trimming so who said what doesn't get mixed
up. Jeremy did not say the above. I did.
Whoops! :) Sorry about that. :)
No offense taken. However, I personally do not want to cater to an
application that is notorious for not following standards.
IE
Randy wrote:
I hope that one day, after time has had its chance to heal,
that we can sit back and laugh about the other night.
Oh hell, I was laughing behind my hand the whole damn time. :P I just had
to watch where the bodies fell, is all. ;)
Dave
--
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Just pinging this.
Just wanted to mention that the penguin still looks funny in IE. ;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
David Fix wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Just pinging this.
Just wanted to mention that the penguin still looks funny in IE. ;)
And this matters...how?
-- Bruce
Just figured if you weren't aware of the issue (many of you are running
Mozilla or Firefox
echo 127.0.0.1 localhost $(hostname) /etc/hosts
This will definitely be overwritten in 7.11. It also takes care of
the perl testsuite case where it is needed.
What do people think about adding the above command to Ch. 6.7?
--
Dan
Sounds good to me. :) No harm from it, for sure.
Manuel, do you mind if we switch over to this method of string
comparisons in jhalfs? David's method is nice, but the syntax Seth
suggests is easier to read and doesn't result in forks. Also
it doesn't
require a specific string format.
I'd say go with that as well. :P My method was a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Feature request: don't hardcode target numbers. E.g., in my UTF-8
book, a new package (gdbm) has been added, thus causing number skew
for all packages after it. Thus, constructions of the following form
fail:
if [ $i = 082-groff ] ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 15:36, David Fix escribió:
Sorry, a bit of a typo, but this is more correct:
if [ ${i: -5} = groff ] ; then {do something} ; fi
That sounds good and is more portable for when supporting Cross-LFS.
I will test it soon, many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 19:52, David Fix escribió:
You bet. :) Just remember to change the -5 to whatever the length
of the command is that you're checking against. :)
The number means the lenght of the string after the - right?
Correct... The length
I'm not sure if this is the right list to do this in, but I noticed that in
the netiquette section of the book
(http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#netiquette), publicly is
mis-spelled... :) It is currently spelled publicaly. :)
Dave
--
The correct list would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've forwarded
your original message. Thanks.
--
Archaic
Thanks Archaic. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
All I can respond is yes, yes, yes! :) All progress is GOOD progress.
;) Seriously, though, I've been working on compiling a GCC-4 version of
LFS, but really wondered myself why the SVN version is not using GCC... No
Hmm, still think it's crazy. Maybe that's a missing feature in the
kernel? Somehow I think that'll never see the light of day.
I looked and my ping is setuid.
-rwsr-xr-x1 root root15876 Sep 4 2001 /bin/ping*
Yep, it may be crazy, but that's how it is... Stops people
Yep, and I got a similar problem at work not so long ago!
the BUS ERROR
in that case was caused by free()ing an invalid pointer...no,
I know I'm
not too good at C! I'd imagine it's a similar problem in inetutils.
It's just a matter of tracking it down. I can't remember,
but did you
Of course it works ! (-:
Haw. :) Now that's cute. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
I may be wrong, but make check fails with the current
instructions, worked
when I removed the '' like so:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD make check
That makes more sense without the . :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the
GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that
are really show-stoppers.
*CHEER* Love to. :) I've not gone ahead and done a 4.01 install myself,
but I thought about it... :) I love the idea, I just
Hey folks... :) I was just checking the man page for limits, and saw
this:
---
The limits file (/etc/limits by default or LIMITS_FILE defined config.h)
describes the resource limits you wish to impose. It should be owned by root
and readable by root account only.
---
However, currently,
Is that yes - I'd like to see a nice green '[ OK ]' when I stop an
already stopped process (the way it is now, which _is_ correct by the
exit status)? Or is that yes - I'd like to see a yellow 'Warning: not
running [ WARN ]' when I stop it (which also returns 0 as is
required for LSB)?
Please join me in welcoming Ken Moffat to the LFS development
team.
_ _ _ _
| | | |___| |___ ___ _ ___
| | | | -_| | _| . | | -_|
|_|___|_|___|___|_|_|_|___|
__
_| |
| | |___ ___| |
|-| -_| |__|
I believe you are correct, but I'd have to direct this back to Nathan.
If you want to add it for yourself, it's real easy three
lines in killproc:
Could you give some line numbers for that patch? :) Sorry, I'm just not
QUITE sure where to put them. :)
Dave
--
Non-Technical explanation: I actually tested fully (I believe) and it
works!!! :-D
Well that looks better. ;) I'm still wondering, though, why: When I have a
process not running (spamd in this case), and I do a spamd stop, it still
says, [ OK ]. :D Shouldn't it say /usr/bin/spamd is not
I've become rather fond on the style shown in Bruce's SBU pages:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/about.html
it neatly gets you:
1) a log
2) the time it took recorded in the log
3) a deeper understanding of how the shell works :-)
Nice! :) Thanks!
Dave
--
Not now. 3.2.x went after partial LSB-2.1.0 compliancy to ease the
transition. See below from the spec.
Ah, gotcha. :) Makes sense then. :) Thanks so much for your hard work,
DJ. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2. I've tested it
to the best
of the amount of time availible, but it should be correct. Alexander,
Archaic, Randy and anyone else who has seen the issue, I'd
appreciate if
you
Well, I didn't have the problem before... However, I am now
experiencing
the following problem after applying your patch:
/etc# init.d/spamd stop
Stopping spamd... [ FAIL ]
It was running, and it DID stop it, but reported a failure.
Then I tried starting it again:
/etc#
Unless you have a reason to use static libraries, I'd just move them
out of the way (after confirming exactly what it installed,
of course).
If you do have a reason to use them, rebuild *binutils* following the
chapter 6 LFS instructions.
Ok great. :) Thank you ever so much, Ken. :)
Ok, without the patch, DJ, I am experiencing a problem, where I try to stop
an already stopped process, and it pretends to work. :) However, it really
doesn't, of course, since the process isn't actually running. And you
already have seen what the patch did to me. :)
Dave
PS Sorry
Okay, does the spamd script that you use set PIDFILE?
-- DJ Lucas
Nope... I just copied from some of the other bootscripts... However, I had
the same problems with samba, which I'd done completely according to the
book. Here is what /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd looks like:
#! /bin/sh
.
And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.
No patch-o attach-o. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
branch of LFS to correct GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can
explain, or care to comment about
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 pwd) at main.c:393
393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++)
(gdb) bt
#0 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 pwd) at main.c:393
#1 0x080521b8 in cmdscanner (top=1) at main.c:355
#2 0x080525ad
Looks like 'q' is the culprit:
(gdb) print q
$2 = 0x1 Address 0x1 out of bounds
Looks like it to me too. :) I'm taking a look right now to see if I can't
find the problem. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
LFS to confirm this?
Confirmed here, Randy, and I'm running SVN-20050730. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
I find it easiest to check out the SVN sources and render the book
myself. It is easier to stay with a consistent version that way, if
desired. I don't know if it is available on Belgarath and mirrors as
HTML, I didn't check.
I also plan on being as helpful as possible and sending in
It's rendered on a daily basis at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/gcc4/
AHA! :) That's what I was looking for! Thanks a ton!
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Seeing how the Bash documentation is expansive, it may be nice to have
the HTML files installed, allowing folks to easily print and have
browser search capability.
What say the group?
I think it should be included for sure... :) If you're going to be doing
LFS, it probably means you'll be
I get the folowing error doing make in autoconf-2.59 in
lfs-gcc4-20050728
Where can a fellow take a look at the gcc4 book? :) I'd be interested in
providing some feedback on this! :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
And if push comes to shove, I assume Canadian usage will be the
preferred model ;)
Yay! :) BTW, Happy Canada Day to those Canadians on here. ;) (Sure I'm
about 5 days late saying it on here, but I had a HECK of a good time on the
first!)
Dave
--
Just wondering... I'm going through the SVN-20050705 book, and I notice
that it's still got binutils 2.16 in it... There's 2.16.1 out, and I've
successfully compiled it instead of 2.16 (I'm at chapter 6.14 now)... Any
reasons that we shouldn't be using 2.16.1? :)
Dave
--
We may have to stop the presses. Zlib has a DoS vulnerability. I'm
looking for info now.
--
Archaic
A new one? Affecting v1.2.2? Where did you read about this? I can't find
anything about it! :) Not that I disbelieve you, I just want to read about
it myself! :)
Dave
--
A possible buffer overflow exploit was discovered in zlib.
--
Archaic
Thanks for the link and the patch, Archaic. :) Much appreciated. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
Hey guys...
I'm running through SVN-20050705, and I notice that on 6.14 (GCC 3.4.4), it
says to run the tests (make check)... However, in chapter 5, it mentions
that you don't HAVE to run the tests in chapter 5, but gives details on the
test suite notes... In chapter 6, where the tests are
Hey guys,
Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass
2...
There's this line:
Results can be compared with those located at
http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/.
However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different
mirrors. :)
NOOO :) Those things are pitifully slow. Not to mention things
have to be done quite differently on mips boxes.
Actually, they have Intel/AMD architecture too. ;) And they're pretty
inexpensive. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Ah, so then we need to put out a call for a decent 1U server, eh?
Anyone?
/me goes looking on ebay.
I've found some Cobalt RAQs that have been pretty cheap on eBay. :) Might
wanna take a look for 'em. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Issue 1:
the following text sounds odd to me:
###
For more information, see info bash - Nodes: Bash Startup Files and
Interactive Shells.
###
snip
Issue 3:
such locales are not supported by LFS in any way.
suggested:
The inputrc page located at:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/chapter07/inp
utrc.html
is currently loaded with much more text than is needed, IMO, and is
rather convoluted, too. Likewise, it refers to an /etc/skel directory
which LFS does not create (nor does it create
Seeking feedback regarding fixing a link in the book.
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1564
--
Archaic
Yeah, I'd definitely take down the current wiki and go for a new one... As
was already said, the current one is... Lacking. :D
Dave
--
Apparently the DOCBOOKTOMAN= doesn't work because it is trying to
execute:
docbook2man doc/modprobe.conf.sgml
By making it we get this:
if [ = docbook2man ]; then \
doc/modprobe.conf.sgml /dev/null 21; \
else
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Flex compilation issue...
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:33:58PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:22:46PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
If Flex is required to build itself, then it probably
If the untar'd dir were copied with 'cp' rather than 'cp -a', the
timestamps would be all wrong. That would force the flex attempt.
---
David Jensen
I don't copy anything... I work in the /working directory and simply do a
tar zxvf /sources/blah.tar.gz or whatever... No other
At this point I have more confidence in your install than mine! If I
rebuild now, the flex bin is the virtually the same as my
build. If I
touch 'scan.l' before make, both scan.c and the flex bin are
significantly larger.
I'm going to change my script to:
touch -t 0303311951 scan.l
58 matches
Mail list logo
