On 3/2/2014 4:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS Version 7.5.
[snip]
I would like to say that it pleases me that the LFS community is as
active as it is, and congratulations on another release of this fine
product. LFS is as
cybertao wrote these words on 03/12/13 22:24 CST:
I just realised I chose the development branch without much consideration,
when the stable version my be more appropriate. If only for the
convenience of release cycle guidelines. I focus on making a bootable CD
and USB image for now using
Armin K. wrote these words on 03/02/13 11:28 CST:
Dana 2.3.2013 18:14, Pierre Labastie je napisao:
I do not understand why the above has been done.
I understand XML::Parser is a Perl module.
But glibc (for example) is a C library, and we do not
put it on the same page as GCC...
I agree
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/24/13 17:45 CST:
Ken Moffat wrote:
For anyone who builds ada (really ? why ? :) in BLFS, I guess they
are going to be missing the ada info files.
I did some Ada coding once (1990s), but not for production. It has
*very* strong type checking and is
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 20:13 CST:
I still am not in favor of putting this in LFS-7.3. It's so much easier
to omit the .info build completely and, of course, there is no sense at
all in building it in Chapter 5.
I really don't understand why texinfo-5.0 had to go into
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/23/13 21:23 CST:
About the only reason why is to avoid questions like Why isn't the
latest version of package X in the book?
Because it came out while LFS-7.3 was in package-freeze mode. Oh wait,
we don't do package-freeze! :-)
I look at it as similar to
Hi all,
I just ran into a package (VLC from BLFS) that looks for the ncurses package
by checking for pkgconfig files. VLC fails to find ncurses because there are
no .pc files installed by ncurses using the LFS instructions. In order for
ncurses to install the pkgconfig files, you must use the
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/29/13 16:57 CST:
Can you please post
$ ls destdir/usr/lib/pkgconfig/*
LOL. Though not necessary as the names of the files are in the name
field of each of the files I posted, here is an ls.
rml@rmlinux: ~/build/ncurses-5.9 ls -l
Armin K. wrote these words on 01/29/13 17:49 CST:
I'd also recommend that you add symlinks as you do for libraries (form
- formw, menu - menuw, etc).
Right. Good call.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6]
On 12/30/2012 3:00 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 21:40 -0800, Nathan Coulson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to propose adding gptfdisk to LFS.
I do prefer it for it's simplicity over parted, but I think BLFS would
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/22/12 21:05 CST:
I think the difference between GB and gigabytes is more style than
grammar. I'd like other opinions.
You can use either. It certainly is not grammar. It is totally interchangeable.
In one place you change five gigabyte to 5 gigabyte.
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/21/12 12:13 CST:
I am proposing that we freeze LFS for 7.2 with the packages we now have
in svn. There is one outstanding ticket to address glibc issues, but
that does not require a package change.
Util-linux may come out with a new release in the next
Hi all,
Though some may remember me from my work in the LFS community, many
of you will not. So, I would like to re-introduce myself. My name is
Randy McMurchy and I have been building LFS since March of 2004. Hard
to believe more than eight years have gone by since that first build.
Though my
Matt Burgess wrote these words on 08/20/12 15:04 CST:
Pings are about right here ~300ms. That said, I was checking my email
this morning using the web client on quantum and it saw the same delay.
Odd. I'll see how things go tonight. Thanks for taking a look!
FWIW, I have been seeing
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/20/12 17:41 CST:
I think we've got it fixed. Mailman issue. Thanks for the test.
I'm seeing almost instantaneous response now. Thanks for fixing the
problem, Bruce.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/20/12 15:50 CST:
Who ? ;-)
Oh, just some guy that search engines took me to the LFS web site when
I was building GNOME back in early 2004!
But seriously, Welcome Back!
Thanks, Ken. I look forward to working with you again.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/31/12 16:25 CST:
With great sadness, I have to report the passing of Andy Benton.
I am sorry to hear this news. Though Andy and I had our differences of
opinion on some things, I always appreciated and admired the work he did
for the (B)LFS community. He will
On 1/21/2011 3:18 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
There is another problem. In the command:
for FN in `find /usr/bin -type l`; do
if [ `readlink $FN | grep \.\./texmf` ]; then
ln -svf `readlink $FN | sed 's|\.\./texmf|../share/texmf|'` $FN
fi
done
unset FN
I get
xinglp wrote these words on 01/04/11 10:49 CST:
It seems that man-db depends on xz-utils.
The configure out puts below
111 checking for pic... pic
112 checking for gzip... gzip
113 checking for compress... no
114 checking for bzip2... bzip2
115 checking for xz... xz
116 checking for
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/01/10 14:50 CST:
In Chapter 5, we are not doing a full bootstrap, so we add
-fomit-frame-pointer so it will produce the same codes as if it was a
full bootstrap.
In Chapter 6, we do the same thing. I think, but I'm not sure, that
-fomit-frame-pointer
is not located where the dev book says it is:
http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-164-testfiles.tar.bz2
Would it be any different than the 163 version?
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
Hi all,
I went to build a new LFS (development version) today so that I could
begin getting BLFS ready for a release. I got bit in that my host's
kernel version (an old LFS build from 2007) was one release too short
(2.6.21.5 instead of 2.6.22.5). I've built 3 versions of LFS since this
host, but
Ken Moffat wrote:
Just for the record, BLFS is still targetted at LFS-6.5, so build
instructions
should be appropriate to that version.
That should probably change now. I'm not sure any active developers
are using 6.5. I am open to suggestions, but I feel BLFS may need
to just simply target
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I have to say that I agree. In my mind, the current site is quite
adequate. I'm not going to be 'for' or 'against' a change, but I don't
see the value in changing.
Ken, us old guys need to stick together. :)
Count me in as one of the old guys!
--
Randy
--
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/30/10 18:06 CST:
All the servers I feel pretty good about.
And not to exclude Ken, I've got Ghostscript and CUPS already updated,
Gutenprint is already being tested against the other two. Oh, and I
mix in Samba just to really test the installation
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/30/10 18:06 CST:
All the servers I feel pretty good about.
And not to exclude Ken, I've got Ghostscript and CUPS already updated,
Gutenprint is already being tested against the other two. Oh, and I
mix in Samba just to really test
Robert Xu wrote these words on 03/28/10 16:38 CST:
I'm just having the problem of getting all the emails about 6-10 hours
late. Like now, I just got an email sent at 10:24 AM, and it's 5:38 PM now.
I also reported the same exact behavior from the mail server on
quantum to the sysadmin, but I
Sorry for the noise if it comes through, but David Jensen emailed to me
saying he hasn't received mail from these two groups in some time, and
he also sent a test mail.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6]
Hi all,
I've noticed that recently there are times (such as right now) that it
takes 3 or 4 hours for LFS mail to be delivered to my mail client.
However, that same mail hits the Gmane News server in mere moments.
Anyone have any idea what is going on with the Quantum server?
--
Randy
Chris Staub wrote these words on 03/12/10 13:09 CST:
Hmm, then you might want to take a look at the LFS Prerequisites page,
and the Less, M4, Groff, GCC, and Glibc pages in Chapter 6. Then again,
it might be better for your sanity if you don't...
Entering late (on purpose) because it is such
Hi all,
I have submitted a patch upstream to the E2fsprogs maintainers to add a
function to the libcom_err library so that it will be compatible with
Heimdal. Without the patch to E2fsprogs, Heimdal will end up adding a
new libcom_err library in /usr/lib and overwrite the .so file that points
to
Hi all,
Is it worth maintaining the Traceroute package in BLFS when Inetutils
from LFS ships a working traceroute program? Is one better than the other?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
clark hammer wrote:
It would be beneficial if the community added wget to lfs. This would allow
lfs users to download additional software once they build their own lfs
system.
This has been discussed before.
One thing Bruce didn't mention is that you have full FTP
Dan Nicholson wrote:
The major reason for the existence of the LSB is to support ISVs who
want to distribute software for linux. They want to have some base to
be able to say here's a package that will work on your system. If
you don't want or need to support that, the LSB is not for you.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
But we don't put *any* .so (or .a) files into /lib, because the only
reason for /lib is to hold libraries that are required before /usr may
be mounted (i.e. early bootscripts). And when you're compiling -- which
is the only time .so or .a files are
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/26/09 15:22 CST:
I'm intending to push 6.5-RC2 out midweek, at which point I'll
also declare a full feature/package freeze.
Cool. It's at that point I build a 6.5 system and start testing
BLFS packages. But until then ...
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips
Hi all,
I'd like to announce that Wayne Blaszczyk has accepted a position as a BLFS
Editor. Wayne has recently been sending in patches for the BLFS book to add
new packages.
Wayne will make a fine addition to the BLFS team and I encourage everyone
to welcome him as the newest addition to the
Tobias Gasser wrote these words on 07/21/09 16:25 CST:
conclusion / request:
add a paragraph in the top of the changelog telling how to use the wiki
log/trunk to get some more details.
knowing about this wiki entries makes my life a lot easier (at least
concerning lfs ;) ). up to today i
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/18/09 10:05 CST:
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS Version 6.5 Release Candidate 1.
[snip]
It is our intention to release LFS-6.5 final within 2 weeks.
Just my opinion, but I think that is too aggressive of a
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/18/09 10:53 CST:
I understand your concerns, but let me mention an alternative view. If we
wait
too long, there will be updates to several packages and the longer we wait,
the
more pressure to incorporate those newer packages into the 'upcoming'
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/17/09 06:24 CST:
BDB was added ages ago when we moved to iproute2, whose arpd implementation
links
against BDB. Personally, I never use arpd, but I guess it's useful for some
network-admin types. We could drop BDB and therefore lose arpd (potentially
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/17/09 06:35 CST:
I'd agree that your proposal is the right thing to do. Bruce, do you mind if
we
squeeze this in for 6.5?
We would also have to put back the short note in the program that builds
arpd, that if you need arpd, then follow BLFS to build
Hi all,
So I don't have to try and scour through the archives, can someone help
me figure out why GDBM was added to chapter 6 of the book, yet BDB was
left in as well. Do we have packages in Chapter 6 that depend on both
being installed?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 03/20/09 07:02 CST:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:35:06 +0100 (MET), Alexander Kozlov
akoz...@nada.kth.se wrote:
there is no libidn/ in glibc-2.9 release, contrary to the contents
of Chap.6. It appears in gnu snapshots though.
Could you be more specific
Jack Stone wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Such a big warning is already present at the bottom of 5.3 (General
Compilation Instructions).
Does it really need repeating on each and every package instruction page?
[snip]
It just seems that people don't realise this so maybe it should be
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 02/28/09 17:00 CST:
Just to let you know that trying to build libusb-compat early on
in a BLFS build fails (hard fail in ./configure) if pkg-config
isn't installed.
I'll fix this right now. This situation with pkg-config is just
going to get worse and
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/28/09 19:33 CST:
While I'm not completely against putting pkg-config in LFS, we could also put
it
into Chapter 3 of BLFS, 'After LFS Configuration Issues'.
It wouldn't surprise me if some LFS package looks for pkg-config in the
near future. At that time,
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 02/12/09 17:18 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I realize I could keep my old logs from packages I've since removed and
replaced, but I'm wondering how others do it.
I didn't...hadn't even considered it when logging installations. I've
since moved to DESTDIR so
Hi all,
Though this topic may be borderline off-topic for the -dev lists, they
have the most traffic, and just may be relevant.
My question is this:
How do others handle the situation where directories are created by
a package during the package install, and then other packages install
other
William Immendorf wrote these words on 02/11/09 16:04 CST:
THIS IS UNFAIR! WILLIAM NEEDS TO HAVE TICKET PREMITIONS!!
Why must you feel you have to shout in ALL CAPS? You'd be so much
more accepted if you just followed the decorum we've established over
the years. You continuously break the
William Immendorf wrote these words on 02/11/09 16:37 CST:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Let William post to -dev. If he demonstrates that he has an emotional age
greater than 12, we can consider restoring ticket privileges.
And I am showing a
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/11/09 16:31 CST:
Let William post to -dev. If he demonstrates that he has an emotional age
greater than 12, we can consider restoring ticket privileges.
Promises won't cut it. Only actions will be considered.
Very well put, Bruce, thank you.
It is up
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/09 12:25 CST:
Thanks for the tip Matt. I wasn't seeing the error on any browser so it was
difficult to figure out. Perhaps we should just delete all accounts and ask
everyone to re-register.
The Admin page (for BLFS and LFS) shows a lot of
Ryan Oliver wrote:
Greg Schafer wrote:
Hopefully, there are others like me that do not mind this
banter between Ryan and Greg. I don't look at it as arguing,
or trying to one-up each other. It is simply their way of
expressing their own ideas. I like it. And I'm learning from
it.
If you feel
Hi all,
If anyone with privileges to Quantum could look in and see why the
Quantum server is so bogged down, I sure would appreciate it. It seems
as though it has been really, really sluggish the last few days.
Top shows that HTTP processes have the CPU running at 100%. Perhaps if
the Apache
Dan Nicholson wrote:
We can call CLFS whatever we want, but by typical open source project
standards, it is definitely a fork.
I agree, that is why I've always referenced it as a fork. And
as Dan says below, I don't consider that a bad thing. It simply
is an accurate description.
I don't
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hi Rob,
I would love to see what you and Robert C. have suggested happen.
[snip good stuff]
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, I would be glad to give up any commit
privileges I have in the projects and work only from the sidelines if it
would help remove the rift
Jim Gifford wrote:
I also hope anything from what people have done towards the LFS's 7.0
goal, that the appropriate credit is giving.
This is funny.
They copy hundreds of BLFS pages (verbatim, mind you) into
the work at http://cblfs.cross-lfs.org/index.php/Main_Page
and don't mention
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM, William Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Everybody,
Is there any way to get some of the archives from the mailing
lists? They are all error 403 right now.
I could be wrong, but I think Gerard disabled the archives because
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Can we please put aside the egos and pointing fingers and work together
to reach the common goal?
Absolutely. More than anything, I got a chuckle this morning
reading this thread and ended up posting something that was
actually just me thinking out loud.
I apologize
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I don't know of any outstanding issues except the GMP issue with some
combinations of hardware and CFLAGS setting. Although we recommend not using
CFLAGS, that could be addressed with a note.
It has not even been one week since the RC1. I don't think that
is enough time.
Ken Moffat wrote:
#define RELEASE stable
-#define VERSION 2.8
+#define VERSION 2.8-20080929-LFS
[snip]
Is there any interest in doing something like this ?
I like it except the -LFS. As we don't modify it one bit, why
add the LFS? It is a stock weekly tarball unmodified. I don't
think LFS
Rob Thornton wrote these words on 11/06/08 17:52 CST:
There may be good reason for this but after building LFS for the 3rd
time, I've come to realize there's no direct method of building BLFS
packages with the final LFS system. No method for downloading packages
exist if you're not building
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:12 CST:
Why do we do:
make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest headers_install
cp -rv dest/include/* /usr/include
instead of:
make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/usr/include headers_install
I just asked that question a week ago! (and was answered)
Anyway, it's
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:28 CST:
OK. I'll add a sentence to explain that.
Would you go ahead and assign yourself ticket #2167 as well?
( http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2167 )
--
Randy
rmlinux: [bogomips 3992.15] [GNU ld version 2.17] [gcc (GCC) 4.1.2]
[GNU C
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/26/08 14:34 CST:
Before you go changing anything, see here:
I didn't mean Bruce should actually change anything. My response was
more on the technical side in that if it *were* changed, the end
result of someone following the book would be identical to
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 10/26/08 16:32 CST:
Greg Schafer wrote:
I've never looked at jhalfs but I understand it implements my ICA
algorithms. My own scripts have been getting exceptionally clean
results lately now that the randomness in GCC builds has apparently gone
as of GCC 4.3.
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 10/21/08 12:39 CST:
Done, #2257. Targetted for 6.4.
This ticket is a duplicate of #2240. I've closed #2257 and have
had #2240 assigned to me. I'll be updating the book and closing
all my tickets as soon as my current build finishes, and I've
built a few
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
There is a problem, however. The script uses open() but with 3 arguments
instead of 2. From what I've found so far, this change in syntax was
introduced in perl-5.8.0, so the installation of Linux Headers fails if
the host's version of perl is 5.8.0. I'm
[ from http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2239 ]
#2239: patch-2.5.9
Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It used to be on the Gnu alpha site: http://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/
but is no longer there. The only place I can find it is:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
/lib/udev/rules.d.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I say keep them in /etc.
Do we flip a coin? :-)
Actually, I lean towards /lib/udev and I believe DJ and Dan
do as well. Does this sort of make it a
Hi all,
Just to satisfy my curiosity, why do we have the Coreutils
installation so far up in the build order in Chapter 6?
Is there a Coreutils binary that won't operate correctly
from /tools/bin? Perhaps the chroot command?
No big deal, just wondering if anyone knows.
--
Randy
--
Hi all,
I don't consider this a big issue, but want to throw it out there.
I noticed when I ran the new Shadow 'groupmems' program, it segfaults.
I didn't think to much about it at the time as this program is new
to Shadow and the man page says you must create a special group and
set the program
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:20 CST:
I followed the lfs updates via lfs-book. But in archives (and in my mailbox),
revisions go from r8593 to r8595, without r8594. And when I study r8595, I
see something happent in r8594. Is there a way to see what happent? what are
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:27 CST:
There may not be a technical reason for installing Coreutils early, just that
it's one of the most heavily used packages.
I know there was much work put into rearranging the build order of
the various packages so that as much as
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 10/12/08 11:46 CST:
Usually the reason is because the path to the tools gets built into
another script/program. In the dependencies appendix, it says that sed
must be built before e2fsprogs. I think it's mk_cmds that hardcodes
the location of sed, but that's
Robert Connolly wrote:
As root, I tried every 'groupmems' option, and they all work. I'm using
shadow-4.1.2.1, glibc-2.8-20080908, binutils-2.18.50.0.9, and
gcc-4.2.5-20080903.
I cannot reproduce the segfault. Not sure why. Strange.
One thing that needs to be reported upstream, however.
Hi all,
Mostly a question for DJ, but FYI for everyone else.
I noticed in your experimental book you use an updated
version of the bootscripts. Does SVN need to be updated
as well?
I know you and Dan did some stuff for the LSB side of
things, but not sure if SVN needs to be updated. Probably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dj
Date: 2008-10-12 13:04:50 -0600 (Sun, 12 Oct 2008)
New Revision: 8651
Modified:
trunk/BOOK/chapter01/changelog.xml
trunk/BOOK/chapter06/iproute2.xml
Log:
Removed broken move in iproute2 commands.
DJ, there's much more broken than just that. The
[cc'ing to LFS-Dev]
Wolfgang Messingschlager wrote:
I suggest before issuing within grub
setup (hd0)
the file /boot/grub/menu.lst should be created. This is much safer,
because it can happen that the system crashes between overwriting the
MBT and creating /boot/grub/menu.lst.
What
Trent Shea wrote:
On Sunday 12 October 2008 14:11:49 Trent Shea wrote:
I wouldn't want to start altering instructions to reflect possible
scenarios though.
Well, still... It feels odd that we would be worried about the system
crashing at this point (ie. the last thing we are doing:).
Hi all,
There was a ticket opened, and since closed as invalid that
some Udev rules belong in /lib/udev instead of /etc/udev.
To me, Udev rules are configuration items and belong in
/etc, but that's just my opinion.
There was a mention (not sure how valid it is) that the
Udev maintainers
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry...already reopened as I didn't see Bruce's comment about closing
it. Closed it again. Well anyway, Dan posted a link to the
conversation upstream.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/12895
Bottom line, it is still left to opinion for now.
DJ Lucas wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I used the readlink command in the Udev instructions to move
the .so files to /usr/lib as they are initially installed in
/lib. Credit Dan Nicholson for the initial work on this change.
This was started in BLFS and I believe it to be the right
direction
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I noted that it didn't do anything too. I suppose we need to now add:
This package does not come with a test suite.
That was done during the package update. :-)
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Hi all,
There's a minor ticket about explaining what the installation
commands in the Linux Headers installation do, and it occurred
to me that is it possible that there's a redundant step?
Here's the existing commands (with my comments for the
book inserted as well):
First ensure the source
DJ Lucas wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:
I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be
slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
We already have bison as a host req. Bison depends on m4, so most
distros I know
Reece Dunn wrote:
I asked this question on 21/11/2007 (Linux Headers question
[http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-November/060618.html]),
which likely resulted in that ticket item. I got essentially the same
response from Thomas Trepl and Mark Rosenstand:
Thomas Trepl
Hi all,
I'm probably off-line the rest of the night as my son is
playing in a college football game on TV and it's about to
start. I'm going to sit back, relax and watch it.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe:
LFS Trac wrote:
#2056: Consider using --disable-shared for gcc pass 1
+---
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Hi all,
Starting in version 126 of Udev, the test directory including
the udev-test.pl test file no longer ships in the tarball.
Though DJ's instructions for version 126 does indeed change
the 'make test' to 'make check', 'make check' does nothing.
I've been looking over the udev mailing list
Hi all,
I used the readlink command in the Udev instructions to move
the .so files to /usr/lib as they are initially installed in
/lib. Credit Dan Nicholson for the initial work on this change.
This was started in BLFS and I believe it to be the right
direction to go.
This has benefits, and
Hi all,
I'm new to this list but I searched the archives for
anything that might be related to the issue I'm about
to describe and couldn't find anything so I thought
I'd bring it up here.
It was brought to my attention that sometime after
the 4.23 release the -e (--exclude) parameter did not
PROTECTED]
CC: LFS Development lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
On Oct 9, 3:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy McMurchy) wrote:
-- Subject: Problems with 'file --exclude troff'
[snip my message to the list]
Well, both the fortran test and the troff test have been
converted to soft tests. I have removed
Randy McMurchy wrote:
This means that the troff test in the File package is not
broken. I see no reason to update to the latest version.
That should be: I see no reason to *not* update to the latest
version.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
Hi all,
I made many, many changes to the Shadow package during the
update to the most recent version. I like the changes, but
I encourage everyone that can to render the book and look
at it. If you can't render it, it will be available tomorrow
in the SVN book.
If there are problems or
DJ Lucas wrote:
Roll back to file-4.21. The newer versions of file do not display the
character set if type is text/troff
Well, that is a separate issue. File is still broken (either 4.21 with
illogical guessing at the character encoding of text files, or 4.25 with
non-working -e
DJ Lucas wrote:
I reverted to 4.23. I never got a chance to see if 4.26 worked. In
4.25, the -e (exclude) switch is broken, both long an short options do
not work.
Yes, I've confirmed that. However, only *parts* of the -e
switch are broken. And I see in the code why. I actually
was able
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I actually
was able to patch the file.c source and things work again.
If anyone is interested in looking at or testing the patch,
here it is (it's also in the repo):
Submitted By:Randy McMurchy randy_at_linuxfromscratch_dot_org
Date:2008-10
Hi all,
Sorry about not getting these final few package updates in
the book. Real Life got in the way a little bit. I should
have it all done by this evening, however.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
1 - 100 of 802 matches
Mail list logo
