On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
Indeed, Fedora quite some time ago stopped shipping libtool .la files
because of how frequently they
Alice Wonder wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
Indeed, Fedora quite some time ago stopped shipping libtool .la files
because of
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:06:12 +0100
From: Armin K. kre...@email.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
.
.
I've just started sendmail. Actually I'm most interested in getting the
slackware issue
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:33:55 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
Armin K. wrote:
On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
Why should we care when it's a distribution issue
On 03/02/2014 09:29 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Alice Wonder wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
Indeed, Fedora quite some time ago
On 03/02/2014 08:55 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every sane distro
It's not a 'distribution issue': you're wrong.
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la
On 03/02/2014 01:38 PM, akhiezer wrote:
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:06:12 +0100
From: Armin K. kre...@email.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
.
.
I've just started sendmail. Actually I'm most
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:55:54 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
.
.
I think I have the test for version-check.sh:
for lib in lib{gmp,mpfr,mpc}.so; do
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:55:54 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
.
.
I think I have the test for version-check.sh:
for lib in lib{gmp,mpfr,mpc}.so; do
Armin K. wrote:
On 03/02/2014 09:29 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Alice Wonder wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
Indeed, Fedora quite
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
requirements page in svn:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
Looks reasonable to me, unless we want to take lib64 / lib32 into account,
rather than just lib. I'd
On 03/02/2014 08:05 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
No matter what you say, if a package A installs a file X.Y that requires
file Z.Y and package A doesn't either:
a) pull automatically the package (depend on) that contains file Z.Y
b)ships that file itself
the packaging is
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
requirements page in svn:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
Looks reasonable to me, unless we want to take lib64 / lib32
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
requirements page in svn:
http
On 02/03/2014 22:00, akhiezer wrote:
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
akhiezer wrote:
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
requirements page
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:27:05 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
requirements page in svn:
http
Le 02/03/2014 21:00, akhiezer a écrit :
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just
take my question as a mark of curiosity: what is the reason to expect release
of LFS and BLFS to be close in time? I would think of something like:
-
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 01/03/2014 22:58, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 28/02/2014 23:24, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Now, I have a question. I have never been involved in development, so just
take my question as a mark of curiosity: what is the reason to expect
release
of
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:36:21 +0100
From: Armin K. kre...@email.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
.
.
I've just started sendmail. Actually I'm most interested in getting the
slackware issue
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:22:26 +
From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:36:21 +0100
From: Armin K. kre...@email.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs
On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:22:26 +
From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:36:21 +0100
From: Armin K. kre...@email.com
Armin K. wrote:
On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every sane distro
It's not a 'distribution issue': you're wrong.
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former one depends on.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every sane distro
It's not a 'distribution issue': you're wrong.
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former
The commit for -rc1 was on Feb 16. Since then there have been text
changes plus the following:
Update kmod to install man pages properly.
Delete symlinks in /usr and add /usr/libexec.
Add a patch for glibc FHS issues.
There is also ticket #3705. It really looks like a user error to me,
but
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:15:10 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
The commit for -rc1 was on Feb 16. Since then there have been text
changes plus the following:
Update
On 28.2.2014 20:15, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The commit for -rc1 was on Feb 16. Since then there have been text
changes plus the following:
Update kmod to install man pages properly.
Delete symlinks in /usr and add /usr/libexec.
Add a patch for glibc FHS issues.
There is also ticket #3705. It
akhiezer wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:15:10 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
The commit for -rc1 was on Feb 16. Since then there have been text
changes plus
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:15:10PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
So the questions is whether we should release 7.5 tomorrow or not. We
could wait for BLFS, but I'm not sure that's really necessary.
As far as I am concerned, LFS -rc1 seems fine : but I've only built
it on x86_64 desktops (two
Em 28-02-2014 18:23, Ken Moffat escreveu:
i686, nor if we should care.
Is i686 gong to be deprecated?
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Em 28-02-2014 18:23, Ken Moffat escreveu:
i686, nor if we should care.
Is i686 gong to be deprecated?
I don't think so. My main system is still a 686, but I don't normally
do a full development on it. If we don't have the hardware, then we
could always build
32 matches
Mail list logo
