Le 25/02/2013 00:02, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Of course we are not building Fortran or Ada or Java, but with the
commands I wrote earlier, I do have the following in /usr/share/info:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 240866 Feb 24 19:13 cpp.info
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 50231 Feb 24 19:13
Am 23.02.2013 00:47, schrieb Tobias Gasser:
i'll report if i run into problems.
i finished the build without any errors. this includes xfce, firefox
18.0.2, thunderbird 17.0.2, libreoffice 3.6.5.2, gimp 2.8.2.
i did not check about warnings, but none of my scripts aborted with an
error.
i
Tobias Gasser wrote:
Am 23.02.2013 00:47, schrieb Tobias Gasser:
i'll report if i run into problems.
i finished the build without any errors. this includes xfce, firefox
18.0.2, thunderbird 17.0.2, libreoffice 3.6.5.2, gimp 2.8.2.
i did not check about warnings, but none of my scripts
On 02/24/2013 04:03 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
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
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:13:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
It turns out that the above warning does not actually stop the build
like s/item/itemx/ does.
Leave it with me - even if a larger patch does solve everything, I
guess a workaround will still be needed in chapter 5 for building
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
I'm inclined right now to leave things alone. The book will build now,
just without the .info file. I suspect that the next gcc release,
whether it will be 4.8 or 4.7.3, will address the issue.
I tested one of the latest
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
I'm inclined right now to leave things alone. The book will build now,
just without the .info file. I suspect that the next gcc release,
whether it will be 4.8 or 4.7.3, will address the issue.
I tested
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 01:31:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Good point. I didn't notice that they were there by default. If the
.info files are present, then there is no need to build them at all.
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 01:31:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 23/02/2013 22:52, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
Good point. I didn't notice that they were there by default. If the
.info files are present, then there is no need to build
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 05:02:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Of course we are not building Fortran or Ada or Java, but with the
commands I wrote earlier, I do have the following in /usr/share/info:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 240866 Feb 24 19:13 cpp.info
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 50231 Feb 24
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 sometimes used where very high
reliability is needed.
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
Randy McMurchy wrote:
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
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 06:45:26PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Nitpick: Its Ada, not ADA. Ada stands for Augusta Ada King, Countess
of Lovelace, the first programmer. She worked with Charles Babbage.
-- Bruce
See :
Ken Moffat wrote:
http://www.cvaieee.org/html/humor/programming_history.html
2008? Isn't it time for us to invent another language? Or should we
leave it to some desperate Ph.D. student looking for a dissertation topic?
:-)
-- Bruce
--
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
test build this weekend with it in though.
So, I managed to carve out some time :-) I've decided to upgrade
IPRoute2 as well, so as we get support for the new networking
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
test build this weekend with it in though.
So, I managed to carve out some time :-) I've decided to
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
test build this weekend with it in though.
So, I managed to carve out some time :-)
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:56:20AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 23:17 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
I think it's probably fine too. I probably won't have time to run a
test build this
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:56:20AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'll see if I can put together a consolidated patch.
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
Thanks, I'll take a look. Rhetorical question: does it really break on
Ken Moffat wrote:
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure indicates problems in:
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/gcc.texi
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure indicates problems in:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:24:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Cheers, I've just been preparing one (without the three ChangeLog
parts). Attached.
I don't think that's enough. The first failure is in
gcc/doc/cppopts.texi and the second failure
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
Randy McMurchy wrote:
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
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
is it a wise decision to use upgrade to 5.0 for the 7.3 release?
as far i can understand there are no security issues with 4.13a but as i
can see from google there are quite some compatibilty issues in
different packages with 5.0 (coreutils, gcc, wget, qemu, docbook...)
i prefer to keep the
Tobias Gasser wrote:
is it a wise decision to use upgrade to 5.0 for the 7.3 release?
as far i can understand there are no security issues with 4.13a but as i
can see from google there are quite some compatibilty issues in
different packages with 5.0 (coreutils, gcc, wget, qemu, docbook...)
On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 17:13 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Tobias Gasser wrote:
for the kernel i'd like to see the 3.8 branch in lfs 7.3, as 3.7 won't
be a LTS kernel. i just finished a complete 7.3rc build (including xfce,
mozilla, gimp, libreoffice, qemu) with kernel 3.8 without any issues
Am 23.02.2013 00:13, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
We've worked around the gcc problems by avoidign building the .info
files (does anyone really use them?).
i've seen the workaround.
i don't use .info-files, i even delete them!
I just did a test build of wget-1.14 with lfs-7.3-rc1 and got no
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
-I
Le 18/02/2013 10:45, Matthew Burgess a écrit :
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbsbruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500
On 02/18/2013 12:16 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
Le 18/02/2013 10:45, Matthew Burgess a écrit :
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbsbruce.du...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo
Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:22:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56258
It doesn't help a lot. It
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 13:20 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
We need to do the
following in all three builds of gcc:
sed -i -e 's/BUILD_INFO=info/BUILD_INFO=/' gcc/configure
This just omits the gcc*.info files (3 files) and avoids building the
useless info files in Chapter 5.
Great, nice and
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
-I ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/include -o doc/gccint.info
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/gccint.texi
gives a lot of warnings in
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
-I ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/include -o doc/gccint.info
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/gccint.texi
gives a
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
at least using jhalfs. It seems to build the executable OK, but then
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500 --no-split -I . -I
../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc \
-I ../../gcc-4.7.2/gcc/doc/include -o doc/gccint.info
40 matches
Mail list logo
