steve crosby wrote:
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve,
I just added a headers_list script that will look at the sources and
pull all the headers and put them into a report. Let's run that and
compare what I have in the script now to see what's missing.
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably need to document that a little better. Basically you untar
your program and tell it ./headers_list iptables-1.3.5 and it creates a
report of all the headers needed for a build.
That makes more sense ;)
resulting asm-headers and
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably need to document that a little better. Basically you untar
your program and tell it ./headers_list iptables-1.3.5 and it creates a
report of all the headers needed for a build.
also below are results for ulog, a companion program to
Hi again,
Sorry about the previous post. Slipped onto the send button.
On 4/30/06, Matt Darcy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the
There's nothing at all wrong with the mailing list. It's just the
inherent nature of a project that is spread out among group of
volunteers that don't always have time to discuss properly - the medium
used is to discuss isn't to blame. In fact, it's good that you brought
this up here
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
I'm really dissapointed that this thread has turned into a support
thread for certain products and arguments over specifics.
The whole point of this thread was to discuss the options and directions
of the whole projects not answer specific questions about
Matt Darcy wrote:
I was wrong and once again return to my belief that this mailing list is
not working and needs to be moderated or subscription.
This list *is( subscription only.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Matt Darcy wrote:
I think we are going to disagree here I'm pretty calm about this, and
I've got not problem with patience, I was happy to wait for responses
and dicussion to pick up, I am frustrated that I called out in detail
how I didn't want this thread to turn out, and people just ignored
On 5/4/06, Matt Darcy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
On 5/1/06, Bryan Kadzban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
a setup. The sticking point would be programs that include linux/x.h
or asm/x.h, if there are any. And it sounds like there are glibc
alternatives to all of those
steve crosby wrote:
My intent was to identify that one of the options provided in the
thread (Jim's work with the linux headers) has problems, as it's
currently not working with certain applications outside of LFS.
Perhaps I should have been more clear in the comment I made.
I'll leave the
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
My intent was to identify that one of the options provided in the
thread (Jim's work with the linux headers) has problems, as it's
currently not working with certain applications outside of LFS.
snip
I think I was able
steve crosby wrote:
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
My intent was to identify that one of the options provided in the
thread (Jim's work with the linux headers) has problems, as it's
currently not working with certain applications outside of LFS.
snip
steve crosby wrote:
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
My intent was to identify that one of the options provided in the
thread (Jim's work with the linux headers) has problems, as it's
currently not working with certain applications outside of LFS.
snip
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve, I think I got it covered in the 00.52, I'll be posting it shortly.
still no joy
linux/dccp.h missing - I added that, and then this occurs
extensions/libipt_connmark.c: In function 'init':
extensions/libipt_connmark.c:52: error:
Ok, got those changes in. Thanx for the reports Steve, this is what I need.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, got those changes in. Thanx for the reports Steve, this is what I need.
no worries - with those changes (dccp.h, netfilter.h) iptables (and
ulog) compile fine. Diff attached for headers script for reference
diff -Naur headers.sh.orig
steve crosby wrote:
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, got those changes in. Thanx for the reports Steve, this is what I
need.
no worries - with those changes (dccp.h, netfilter.h) iptables (and
ulog) compile fine. Diff attached for headers script for reference
diff -Naur
Steve,
I just added a headers_list script that will look at the sources and
pull all the headers and put them into a report. Let's run that and
compare what I have in the script now to see what's missing.
http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers_list
--
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve,
I just added a headers_list script that will look at the sources and
pull all the headers and put them into a report. Let's run that and
compare what I have in the script now to see what's missing.
On 4/30/06, Andrew Benton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
Yes, glibc has support for its syscalls, but the LLH headers do not, and
AFAIK glibc doesn't install headers for it; userspace programs
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I have to agree with Bryan on this one. Half the reason that the
headers in include/{linux,asm} are static is because you want to
advertise the same set of kernel interfaces to userspace programs that
your C libraries are aware of.
Isn't it up to the glibc headers to say
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I thought iptables required the raw kernel source anyway?
No, it builds fine with just the sanitised 2.6.12 llc headers.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Andrew Benton wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I thought iptables required the raw kernel source anyway?
No, it builds fine with just the sanitised 2.6.12 llc headers.
I stand corrected then.
(I really think it had a parameter to the kernel source tree in its make
command, though; it
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I can't get out of LFS.
I've built two clfs systems in the past few days (one, without any
audio/video
Hi Andy,
Andrew Benton schrieb:
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with jim's
script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
to build. I've no idea what's broken in
At the risk of being considered as one these
1.) if you've got no idea whats been discussed in these mails - don't
comment, we don't need a can I have wirless tools style
posters, in which case I do apologise for butting in amongst those who
aren't:
I notice that Bruce Dubbs wrote
Andrew Benton wrote:
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get ip
to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I can't get out of
LFS.
I am running a complete LFS-SVN-20060418 system built with Jürg's headers
and so far everything is fine. I'm at QT right
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
that's
what I get for building a firewall box against the 4.something or 5.0
book and then never updating it.)
Why? Did it fail? Was there a security issue?
Bottom line: you don't have to make upgrades unless there real reasons
to do so, not just because a package was
Kevin Buckley wrote:
To my mind, having a full list of of all the users and groups that
BLFS users MIGHT require, presented to readers of an LFS book, is akin
to going WBLFS - Way Beyond LFS.
Have you read BLFS? Specifically,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/postlfs/users.html
Kevin Buckley wrote these words on 05/01/06 07:33 CST:
a general discussion about users and groups in BLFS that educates
folk as to why they MIGHT need some users and groups Beyond what
LFS has provided
I can see this added to the page on users and groups, but not a
complete discussion.
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:00:16AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
In my opinion, expecting someone to read the beginning discussion
for each section is unreasonable. We provide some information here,
but nothing critical to build, or use, a package.
Why would it be unreasonable? If education
Andrew Benton wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with jim's
script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
And iproute2. With Jim and Jürg's script created headers I can't get
ip to build. I've no idea what's broken in BLFS because I
Kevin Buckley wrote:
To my mind, having a full list of of all the users and groups that
BLFS users MIGHT require, presented to readers of an LFS book, is akin
to going WBLFS - Way Beyond LFS.
Have you read BLFS? Specifically,
Jim Gifford wrote:
Try Version 00.45, I built it with no issues, let me know.
Where is that? http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers is showing version
00.37 at the moment.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
Andrew Benton wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Try Version 00.45, I built it with no issues, let me know.
Where is that? http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers is showing version
00.37 at the moment.
Andy
http://headers.cross-lfs.org - I'll update that version right now, thanx.
--
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
that's what I get for building a firewall box against the
4.something or 5.0 book and then never updating it.)
Why? Did it fail? Was there a security issue?
Well, I think there are security issues with Apache that I need to fix.
But that wouldn't
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
that's what I get for building a firewall box against the
4.something or 5.0 book and then never updating it.)
Why? Did it fail? Was there a security issue?
Well, I think there are security issues with Apache that I need to
Hi all,
First of all, I have sent this mail to all lists, but I'd request that
all responses happen on LFS-DEV to keep this thread (assuming it gets
response) together and followable.
Reading through threads in general there appears to be a little
seperation and difference of opinion on a
Matt Darcy (the guvnah!) wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
a.) Do we stick with LLH and pray it takes off again
b.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Darcy (the guvnah!) wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
a.) Do we stick with LLH and pray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Darcy (the guvnah!) wrote:
c.) what are the livecd doing with udev - removing hotplug ? what rules
are they using ? etc
I'd hope they're using the same rules as LFS+BLFS.
Our rules contain all official ones, plus some livecd-specific ones.
If not, I'd
(Resending because I think I used the wrong From: address last time
around.)
Andrew Benton wrote:
install the raw kernel headers from the 2.6.16 kernel in
/tools/glibc-kernheaders and compile glibc against them. For
userspace, keep using the 2.6.12 sanitised llc headers. Works for me.
It
I wrote:
III) Devices usable in LFS are correctly named and have proper
permissions, as assigned by LFS developers.
III) II, plus: Devices not usable without BLFS packages are at least
correctly named. IOW, if one installs a BLFS package without reading the
udev/passwd part in BLFS book, the
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
install the raw kernel headers from the 2.6.16 kernel in
/tools/glibc-kernheaders and compile glibc against them. For
userspace, keep using the 2.6.12 sanitised llc headers. Works for me.
It worked well for LFS-6.0. It's a tried and tested method
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
(Resending because I think I used the wrong From: address last time
around.)
Andrew Benton wrote:
How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
Yes, glibc has support for its syscalls, but the LLH headers do not, and
AFAIK glibc doesn't install headers for it;
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:29:16AM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote:
1.) Kernel Headers, yes you knew this was coming but its certainly worth
talking about, a lots been said on this but its really still unclear of
direction. I suppose the discussion should center around
For LFS-6.2, I recommend
Joe Ciccone wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
How will your non-glibc userspace packages use inotify?
I'm unaware of what glibc-2.3.6 does. glibc-2.4 does install
/usr/include/sys/inotify.h regardless of whether linux/inotify.h is
found.
Ah, so glibc does install it.
So then, if glibc
Chris Staub wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
3.) users and group creation, I'm reluctant to touch on this again as
I know its close to a few individuals hearts and a lot of time has
been put into this, but due to the ude discussion I think its worth at
least touching upon.
a.) do we define
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any
kernel headers at all? Is it just for glibc (and stuff like util-linux
that's Linux specific)? Hmm.
Yes, LKML folks appear to agree that the kernel headers are just for the C
library (be it glibc,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any
kernel headers at all? Is it just for glibc (and stuff like util-linux
that's Linux specific)? Hmm.
Yes, LKML folks appear to agree that the kernel headers are just for the C
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'm not sure I completely understand. Is Linus saying that it is up
to the interface library to *copy* the needed data structures (not
including) from the kernel to their own set of public headers?
Yes.
If so, is this because the kernel devs don't know what definitions
(Gaah! I think I need to change the address that I've subscribed. At
least that way my mailer would use the right one by default.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
So then, if glibc installs everything like this, why do we need any
kernel headers at all? Is it just for glibc
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with
jim's script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
I thought iptables required the raw kernel source anyway?
Regardless, it's definitely one of the few Linux-specific programs. Its
only purpose in
53 matches
Mail list logo
