DJ Lucas wrote:
Well, I'm just slightly red faced right now. :-) I'm almost there
and then all of a sudden I can't test it any more...but it's back again!
Such an obvious oversight. Yes, the problem does exist. I've got
glibc building now.
Thanks for the cluebat. I guess I'll get
John Miller wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
William Zhou wrote:
I have been using LFS for more than a year's time and it is great.
One of my friend started LFS several days ago and got an error when
adjusting the toolchain( 5.7 ). The problem was that the gcc specs path
was pointed to the
all,
Chapter 6.50 module init-tools-3.1
the command
tar -xvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
should be
tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on platforms.
Matt
--
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:01, Matt Darcy escribió:
should be
tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on
platforms.
Not. When issuing that command the tar binary used must be the one
in
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
However the missing j option for untaring needs updating.
Again, we're using the tar in /tools at this time which we know is
tar-1.15.1. Try that version on a tar.bz2 or tar.gz without the -j or
-z and see what happens. ;)
--
JH
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5. The patch for 2.3.5 is also in patches. It's
been running for about 10 hours on an establish system of around 4
months under
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5. The patch for 2.3.5 is also in patches. It's
been running for about 10 hours on an establish system of around 4
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd
suggest testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and
verified only on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask
someone else to do a full 6.1.1-pre1 build
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:10:45 +0100
Jörg W Mittag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I contacted the gmane guys today to see about getting things organised
with regard to a more consistent mirroring setup for all of the lists,
and am
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Sorry it's so last minute with release scheduled in 6 days, but I'd suggest
testing this patch for inclusion in 6.1.1. I have tested and verified only
on 2.3.5.
I don't have time to test this myself, so I'm going to have to ask
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that
sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems.
It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug
report mentioned elsewhere by DJ for the
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Personally, I've not seen any problems with xmms (1.2.10) or xine that
sound like this bug, even on my 6.1 systems.
It is a glibc bug, not nvidia, xmms, xine, or OOo. Read the debian bug
report
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. Doctor, it hurts
when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it.
In the test case
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Note that BLFS-6.1 assumes LFS-6.1 as a base, therefore I'd think that
BLFS-6.1.1 (if there is such a release) will assume LFS-6.1.1. As such,
I don't consider OOo2 to be an issue as it's not in an existing release
of BLFS. Xine may be a different issue, though as I
Ken Moffat wrote:
Looking at the gentoo, debian, and blfs references, this seems to be
triggered by (a) nvidia drivers, or (b) gnome (versions/items not
specified), or (c) xmms (1.2.8? debian version) without libmikmod2, or
(d) some OOo issue. From here, trying to trigger the bug looks
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:01:47PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
Ok, so the order in which libraries are loaded, together with a missing
library, can trigger an assertion failure in glibc. Doctor, it hurts
when I delete this library which has other libraries depending on it.
In
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:58:03PM +, DJ Lucas wrote:
I think that the deciding factor should be that this is acknowledged
and fixed upstream. OTOH, it looks like BLFS can work arround it if
needs be with an LD_PRELOAD line...It might be a pain to find them,
but it can be done I
17 matches
Mail list logo
