Re: [lfs-dev] Very minor issue with bzip2 instructions

On 8/23/2020 4:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 8/23/20 3:44 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: /lib/libbz2.so.1.0 is not a symlink but a hard link. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, any real difference (again, super minor) only shows up when packaging. Suggest changing

[lfs-dev] Very minor issue with bzip2 instructions

/lib/libbz2.so.1.0 is not a symlink but a hard link. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, any real difference (again, super minor) only shows up when packaging. Suggest changing the following: cp -av libbz2.so* /lib ln -sv ../../lib/libbz2.so.1.0 /usr/lib/libbz2.so to cp -av

Re: [lfs-dev] e2fsprog depends optionally on udev

On April 3, 2020 2:17:29 PM CDT, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: >On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:27 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: >> On 4/3/20 12:33 PM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: >> > I've reinstated the ICA system in jhalfs, in order to test the >> > builds >> > with the

Re: [lfs-dev] Un-rendered XML files in the Book source tree

On 2/9/2020 11:33 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: Le 09/02/2020 à 17:46, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev a écrit : On 2/9/20 10:36 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: Le 09/02/2020 à 09:02, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev a écrit : I'll spare you the details of how I cam to notice this but i

Re: [lfs-dev] Question about the "m" in Python library names

On 1/19/2020 12:17 AM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: See https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3149/for rationale Sorry, bad link. https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3149/ --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe

Re: [lfs-dev] Question about the "m" in Python library names

On 1/18/2020 9:21 PM, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: On the back of trying to build Xen 4.12.2 on an LFS system, I've hit an issue whereby the Xen M4 python_devel module fails but, even when I fix that, Python3 seems to report the "wrong" info. ac_python_version=`$PYTHON -c 'import

Re: [lfs-dev] dynamic library libbz2.so seems to be needed for file-5.38 in chapter 5

On 12/20/2019 6:33 PM, Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev wrote: On 12/20/19 2:53 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 12/20/19 2:29 PM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: Here is the error I get:    CCLD libmagic.la

Re: [lfs-dev] ipv6

On 12/11/2019 10:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: Recently Joel Bion sent us a hint that addresses setting static ipv6 addresses in LFS. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/IPv6-in-LFS.txt Okay, I'm not subbed to hints, but I finally got a chance to take a look.

Re: [lfs-dev] ipv6

On December 12, 2019 10:17:24 AM CST, Joel Bion via lfs-dev wrote: >I agree with what Uwe is saying 100%. > >IPv6 use is increasing - right now Google is seeing 24.9% of its >incoming daily traffic is IPv6, of course a lot of that has to do with >mobile devices. > >But nobody can really ignore

Re: [lfs-dev] ipv6

On 12/11/2019 10:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: Recently Joel Bion sent us a hint that addresses setting static ipv6 addresses in LFS. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/IPv6-in-LFS.txt I've been looking at this trying to decide if/how to incorporate this into LFS.

[lfs-dev] vim syntax rules for resolv.conf with IPv6 (Was: Got static IPv6 working reliably on LFS-running server)

On 12/8/2019 5:11 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: Step 5: Why? This works just fine despite vim's broken highlighting - I need to fix that too. Can copy the expressions from the bind syntax files and upstream. Way OT, but it was bugging me. I ripped off the ones in bind's syntax files

Re: [lfs-dev] Got static IPv6...

On 12/9/2019 4:35 AM, jpb...@westvi.com wrote: Hi - How you want to incorporate IPv6 into LFS is your choice, of course - my goal was to provide a 'nudge' to actually incorporating it, as I think it needs to be included. Nudge accepted. Thank you. :-) For example, I agree that the

Re: [lfs-dev] Got static IPv6 working reliably on LFS-running server

On 12/7/2019 9:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 12/7/19 9:11 PM, Joel Bion via lfs-dev wrote: Hi - This concerns adding static IPv6 support to Linux From Scratch. I worked on this a bit a few years ago, but life got in the way, and I paused all work on this, but over the

[lfs-dev] Kernel options not covered in LFS

Any objection to adding pointers to BLFS on the kernel page about Linux firmware and cpio that might be used by make? The firmware has been a known issue for some time but was not included in LFS because it is covered in detail in BLFS (as well as limited to exactly what is needed so not have

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On September 22, 2019 11:14:01 AM CDT, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: >On 9/21/19 11:52 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: >> >> >> On 9/21/2019 11:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: >>> >>> I wonder if the firewalld authors have considered the case of a

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On 9/21/2019 11:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: I wonder if the firewalld authors have considered the case of a kernel without modules.  I don't know of any of the major distros that do not use modules.   User configured kernels are a relatively rare situation (not for us of course). 

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On 9/21/2019 11:13 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: Seems odd to depend on the overall setting.  If loadable modules support is set, but you don't build any modules, why should the SW care? I agree that the above would be a little unusual, but the test should not be whether the kernel is

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On 9/21/2019 10:02 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: On 9/20/2019 11:29 PM, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 07:46, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: In the book, we currently have the text "Install the modules, if the kernel configuration uses them:" - this is

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On 9/20/2019 11:29 PM, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 07:46, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: In the book, we currently have the text "Install the modules, if the kernel configuration uses them:" - this is incorrect. All kernels use them, whether they

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On September 20, 2019 11:29:01 PM CDT, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: >On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 07:46, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev > wrote: >> >> In the book, we currently have the text "Install the modules, if the >kernel configuration uses them:" - this is incorrect.

Re: [lfs-dev] make modules_install text

On 9/20/2019 6:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 9/20/19 6:46 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: In the book, we currently have the text "Install the modules, if the kernel configuration uses them:" - this is incorrect. All kernels use them, whether they

[lfs-dev] make modules_install text

In the book, we currently have the text "Install the modules, if the kernel configuration uses them:" - this is incorrect. All kernels use them, whether they are built-in or not, and this step is required to populate /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/modules.{builtin,dep,order,*}. This sentence should

Re: [blfs-dev] Add localed to elogind

On 9/4/2019 5:08 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: Just got an answer from an artix guy. There is a project maintained (well, there has not been any commit since 2012) by gentoo: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/openrc-settingsd.git/ which actually also includes hostnamed and timedated

Re: [lfs-dev] Concerning iana-etc

On 7/18/2019 10:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/18/19 9:36 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/7/2019 5:28 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/7/19 5:23 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/3/2019 10:06 AM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/3/19 1:17 AM, DJ Lucas via

Re: [lfs-dev] Concerning iana-etc

On 7/7/2019 5:28 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/7/19 5:23 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/3/2019 10:06 AM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/3/19 1:17 AM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: [snip] Just a quick (but functional) mock-up using update-ca-certificates as an example

Re: [lfs-dev] Searching for a chapter on multilib

On 7/12/2019 5:53 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: I did have a patch for jhalfs that was relatively simple for Thomas's build, but it's went away with last cleanup, but was not difficult. I think all I had to do was to expand the glibc-* target I had to add -32 to the sed for the package

Re: [lfs-dev] Searching for a chapter on multilib

On 7/12/2019 6:37 AM, Lewis Pike via lfs-dev wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:37:40AM -0400, Cindy Sue Causey via lfs-dev wrote: Woohoo, I got one! Try this: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/lfs-systemd-multilib/index.html I hit up a search engine, and the 404 (gone to Atlanta) dead

Re: [lfs-dev] Concerning iana-etc

On 7/3/2019 10:06 AM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 7/3/19 1:17 AM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: On 6/28/2019 10:59 AM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 6/28/19 10:16 AM, Marty Jack via lfs-dev wrote: You could consider doing it the way I have been doing it. In my view the iana-etc

Re: [lfs-dev] Concerning iana-etc

On 6/28/2019 10:59 AM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 6/28/19 10:16 AM, Marty Jack via lfs-dev wrote: You could consider doing it the way I have been doing it.  In my view the iana-etc package in the book is in unmaintained status. If you download

Re: [lfs-dev] lfs-bootscripts-20190524 /sbin/ifup not working with bridge interface

On 6/9/2019 11:41 PM, xinglp via lfs-dev wrote: Jean-Marc Pigeon via lfs-dev 於 2019年6月10日 週一 上午10:17寫道： Hello, lfs-bootscripts-20190524 /sbin/ifup, fail to properly add bridge. ifconfig.bro is the bridge definition # cat /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.br0 ;- IFACE=br0

Re: [lfs-dev] Minor cosmetic cleanups of bootscripts

On 5/23/2019 10:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: Initial look is OK, but I'll have to test tomorrow.   -- Bruce Thank you. Not that I couldn't commit myself, but I definitely wanted a second set of eyes. Thanks! --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ:

Re: [lfs-dev] very clean method - was: Re: [RFC] Use GCC -ffile-prefix-map option to simplify instruction of Glibc

On 4/12/2019 7:47 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: On 12/04/2019 12:37, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: Comparison does not work anymore because of some randomization in code generation... Maybe, It could be disabled by some switch, though. We may look at what is done for comparing

Re: [lfs-dev] multilib book SVN-20190327

On 4/16/2019 2:00 PM, spiky0011 via lfs-dev wrote: Hello Just going through multilib book at ch5.7 glibc running sanity check for -mx32 I get wrong output [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2 > not [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux-x32.so.2]

Re: [lfs-dev] Python3 in LFS: but no bare python exectuable.

On April 15, 2019 9:03:10 PM CDT, "Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev" wrote: > >On 4/15/19 8:57 PM, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: >> I am sure that there are reasons for not doing this but I've noticed, >> as a result of Xen no longer needing Python 2, that there isn't a >> bare `python` installed

Re: [lfs-dev] Mere Linux

On April 11, 2019 10:49:07 PM CDT, Jeremy Huntwork via lfs-dev wrote: >Hi Folks, > >I'm just dropping a line to say I've released some actual documentation >around a system I've been tinkering with for a long time: >https://merelinux.org > >I thought some of you might find some ideas and

[lfs-dev] very clean method - was: Re: [RFC] Use GCC -ffile-prefix-map option to simplify instruction of Glibc

On March 28, 2019 7:00:29 PM CDT, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: >It is disappointing that glibc links to static libgcc.  What we >really need is a new generation of experimenters to replace Greg and >Ryan. > >I like the sound of the "very clean method", but I'm not sure that >it helps,

Re: [lfs-dev] Patching LFS XML sources: SVN insight required

On 3/30/2019 9:04 PM, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: What's not been clear to me in trying to store changes within my local SVN repo is how to seperate things out so that for example, i could apply a "PkgUser" SVN diff to a vanilla LFS XML source tree if it hadn't had Thomas's Multilib patch

Re: [lfs-dev] Patching LFS XML sources: SVN insight required

On 3/31/2019 2:38 AM, Thomas Trepl via lfs-dev wrote: Next step will be to make a branch in the original repository for the ML part. This should probably be done sooner rather than later, there is enough of a demand that it is useful outside of the core group of developers, and I'm not

Re: [lfs-dev] [RFC] Use GCC -ffile-prefix-map option to simplify instruction of Glibc

On 3/25/2019 4:34 AM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: On 2019-03-24 12:49 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: On 3/24/19 12:20 PM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: In r11250 DJ introduced several symlinks and GCC -isystem options for Glibc so it will use the final system location of system headers.

Re: [lfs-dev] jhalfs updates

On 3/9/2019 10:38 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: On 09/03/2019 17:09, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: This reminds me, I'm getting /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0 with IFACE=enp3s0. Yes, completely forgot about that... Problem is, I want to take my information from the book, and the book

Re: [lfs-dev] jhalfs updates

On 3/9/2019 2:50 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: Sent to lfs-dev, since I am not sure everybody using jhalfs monitors alfs-discuss. I've made several updates to jhalfs lately: - generate an /etc/adjtime file for systemd. This involves a new variable named LOCAL, which is set in System

Re: [lfs-dev] Last call for 8.4 changes

On February 28, 2019 2:22:46 AM CST, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: > >To Bruce, Doug and DJ: I may take an intermediate approach: add the two >lines >above only to jhalfs (in Makefile, under the "devices" target), not to >the LFS >book itself, where it could be confusing for new LFS'ers. >

Re: [lfs-dev] Last call for 8.4 changes

On February 27, 2019 3:27:02 PM CST, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: >On 27/02/2019 18:05, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: >> On 2/27/19 10:45 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote: >>> On 27/02/2019 04:47, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: We now have all tickets for 8.4 closed and all

Re: [lfs-dev] Update GCC optional dependencies for graphite

On February 25, 2019 11:44:00 AM CST, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: >Now GCC relys on ISL (https://repo.or.cz/isl.git) to enable graphite >optimization, instead of Cloog-PPL and PPL. > >We should update this in LFS Appendix C. Better, just add it to the book in the 8.5 cycle and remove the note.

Re: [lfs-dev] Creating a bootable UEFI stick from an iso ?

On 2/6/2019 7:11 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: > > no existing mounts in /mnt Actually, there is a reason that /mnt hasn't been populated for a long time now. In FHS 2.2, IIRC, possibly earlier (I was unable to find 2.1), '/mnt' was redefined as a mount point for temporary filesystems (ex:

Re: [lfs-dev] Creating a bootable UEFI stick from an iso ?

On 2/5/2019 7:35 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: > So far, all my linux machines have had CD or DVD drives, so I have not > needed to create bootable usb sticks. But I'm hoping to get a new > laptop, and all the interesting and available ones come with > windoze-10 installed and without a DVD

Re: [lfs-dev] Multilib patch

On January 2, 2019 6:55:52 AM CST, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote: > >The one other thing I noticed is that there must be some automatic >re-formatting of the XML going on (?) after changes are made, in that >a couple of the patch chunks only failed to apply to the vanilla 8.3 >XML >because the

Re: [lfs-dev] Multilib patch

On 01/01/2019 10:50 AM, spiky0011 via lfs-dev wrote: DJ Lucas. I have tried building your multilib sysV version I get a error in building libcap-2.25 x32bit. So far no problems upto here, I have restarted from ch6 a 2nd time incase I made a mistake. Error libcap-2.25# make CC=&quo

Re: [lfs-dev] lfs-systemd svn 6.75.Util-linux-2.33

On 12/4/2018 2:18 PM, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote: > > No, something out of the ordinary. Came up when the build order was changed > last time. Think procps links to systemd and needs the util-linux logs or > something. Give me a bit and I'll confirm what it was. Sorry so late. I

Re: [lfs-dev] lfs-systemd svn 6.75.Util-linux-2.33

On December 3, 2018 11:12:34 AM CST, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: >On 12/03/2018 10:02 AM, Thanos Baloukas via lfs-dev wrote: >> It has >> >> rm -vf /usr/include/{blkid,libmount,uuid} >> >> We don't create those symlinks now. It should be >> >> rm -vf /usr/lib/lib{blkid,mount,uuid}* >> >>

Re: [lfs-dev] systemd-239 testsuite assumes "/bin/touch"

On 11/17/2018 04:56 PM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: systemd-239 test suite fails in BLFS: exec-basic.service: Executing: /bin/touch /tmp/b exec-basic.service: Failed to execute command: No such file or directory We can list `touch` as "a Coreutils programs expected by BLFS packages to be

Re: [lfs-dev] Glibc-2.28 for a 64-bit system

On November 10, 2018 9:00:32 AM CST, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: >On 2018-11-10 13:13 +, John Frankish via lfs-dev wrote: >> > > Ref: >> > > >> > > Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20181106 Chapter 6. Installing >> > > Basic >> > > System Software 6.9. Glibc-2.28 >> > > >> > > The

Re: [lfs-dev] Glibc-2.28 for a 64-bit system

On November 10, 2018 7:13:53 AM CST, John Frankish via lfs-dev wrote: >> > Ref: >> > >> > Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20181106 Chapter 6. Installing >Basic >> > System Software 6.9. Glibc-2.28 >> > >> > The instructions mention: >> > >> > libc_cv_slibdir=/lib >> > This variable sets

Re: [lfs-dev] Fwd: Re: Propose requiring Python 3.4 or later for building glibc.

On 10/24/2018 04:35 PM, William Harrington via lfs-dev wrote: On 2018-10-23 12:58, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: FYI.   -- Bruce Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Propose requiring Python 3.4 or later for building glibc. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:57:46 -0500 From: Bruce

Re: [lfs-dev] Multilib patch

On 08/14/2018 05:54 AM, Thomas Trepl wrote: Hi, for those who are interested in doing {,B}LFS with multilib support, here is a patch on the LFS book adding some instructions to build the LFS core system with multilib support. Updates to this based on Thomas's work at https://io.ax.lt/.

Re: [lfs-dev] Significant changes to LFS

On 09/29/2018 11:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I don't have a problem restoring util-linux in Chaoter 5 and restoring the needed symlinks for both books.  It's unclear to me what other changes are needed. Sorry all, I had inadvertently replied off-list. This has been sorted locally. It's a

Re: [lfs-dev] Significant changes to LFS

On 09/20/2018 12:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I have made some reasonably significant changes to LFS.  In addition to five package updates I have done the following. 1.  Removed util-linux from Chapter 5. 2.  Removed the associated symlinks from Chapter 6, Creating Essential     Files and

Re: [lfs-dev] Significant changes to LFS

On 09/20/2018 08:55 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: I didn't look yet, but after thinking on it a day or two... I still haven't gotten to this, but did the following files get installed after the build order changes in the systemd book? If not, these can probably be installed manually, I haven't went

Re: [lfs-dev] New groups ?

On September 25, 2018 4:55:25 PM CDT, Ken Moffat wrote: >On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:38:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> On 09/24/2018 09:57 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: >> > Booting with current eudev on sysv, I see complaints from udevd >> > about unknown groups render and kvm. >> > >> >> I see

Re: [lfs-dev] Significant changes to LFS

On September 20, 2018 12:36:25 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >I have made some reasonably significant changes to LFS. In addition to > >five package updates I have done the following. > >1. Removed util-linux from Chapter 5. > >2. Removed the associated symlinks from Chapter 6, Creating

Re: [lfs-dev] Multilib patch

On 08/25/2018 12:13 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: One more thing, need to add lib32 paths to remove-la-files.sh. I, thus far, have not messed with lib32x. I used a separate path for  files in /usr/lib32. Same for /usr/lib32/pkgconfig and /usr/local/lib32/pkgconfig. On second thought

Re: [lfs-dev] Multilib patch

On 08/14/2018 05:54 AM, Thomas Trepl wrote: Hi, for those who are interested in doing {,B}LFS with multilib support, here is a patch on the LFS book adding some instructions to build the LFS core system with multilib support. Apply the patch to the LFS sources and run "make ARCH=multilib".

Re: [lfs-dev] Fwd: Re: RC1 security issues

On August 16, 2018 10:44:47 AM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >OK, I'll release -rc2. I do not think we need to invalidate the tags >we >have already done in BLFS. Of course, it's always a concern, but in this case I can't see anything that is made available to the dependent packages. I sure as

Re: [lfs-dev] RC1 security issues]

g >Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] RC1 security issues >User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) >Message-ID: <20180816133102.GA19024@milliways.localdomain> > >On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:57:22AM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: >> >> Seriously, after better review, update in place seems fi

[lfs-dev] RC1 security issues

Discussion was requested in bug to see if security issues should be fixed before or after release. There are two low severity security issues in OpenSSL-1.1.0h currently in rc1. My thoughts, there is a low probability of breakage, and since we need to do kernel and headers again (again, I

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS multilib (x86_64 + i686)

On July 18, 2018 4:14:47 AM CDT, thomas wrote: >sln: cannot execute binary file This is a big clue. That file, in particular, is even more useful being it is statically linked (static ln). The most likely cause is that your x86_64 kernel was not built to also run x86 binaries. --DJ Is host

Re: [lfs-dev] meson-0.47.0

On July 3, 2018 10:21:43 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >I'm checking out meson-0.47.0 for lfs and the instructions in the bool >work nicely with the exception of the last two: > >mv -v >/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/meson-0.47.0-py3.6.egg/share/man/man1/*.1 >\ > /usr/share/man/man1 >rm -r

Re: [lfs-dev] cannot support boot from encrypt root system

On June 29, 2018 11:30:02 PM CDT, William Harrington wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:14:39 -0500 >Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >> You are right about the purpose of LFS, but I also know of several >> instances of LFS systems >> successfully used in production mode. >> >>   -- Bruce >> > >Thank you

Re: [lfs-dev] ld-2.27.so.dbg broken ?

On June 29, 2018 10:51:46 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > >On 06/29/2018 10:12 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: >> I'm trying to get the BLFS tests for libinput to run. Among the >> instructions is a commented hunk about valgrind needing debugging >> symbols: >> > >> >> BUT running >> >> ln -svf

Re: [lfs-dev] Bug in fs-bootscripts-20170626

On 06/03/2018 01:11 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I think I like this better: echo "Press s for a shell or any other key to continue" [ "${HEADLESS=0}" = "0" ] && read -n1 ENTER if [ "${ENTER}" = "s" ]; then   echo -e '\nType 'exit' to continue'   PS1='$ ' /bin/sh fi One minor problem is that

Re: [lfs-dev] [PATCH v2] Use "utf8" mount option for MS filesystem instead of "iocharset=utf8"

On May 16, 2018 12:01:58 AM CDT, Xi Ruoyao wrote: >On 2018-05-15 10:56 -0500，Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> On 05/15/2018 02:49 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: >> > "iocharset=utf8" makes the filesystem case sensitive. We can >replace it >> > with "utf8" option which tells the kernel to

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

On May 5, 2018 4:43:49 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >I've updated the LFS book with the following: > >Update to gcc-8.1.0. >Update to linux-4.16.7. >Update to man-pages-4.16. >Update to meson-0.46.0. >Update to shadow-4.6. >Update to tzdata-2018e. >Update to xz-5.2.4. > >It

Re: [lfs-dev] Fwd: Re: another can of worms? OpenRC

On February 22, 2018 8:59:08 AM CST, "A. Wan" <j...@mokwan.com> wrote: > > > >On Wed, February 21, 2018 21:52, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> On 02/21/2018 10:07 PM, A. Wan wrote: > >> > >>> Is there even one other compelling reason for using systemd

[lfs-dev] Fwd: Re: another can of worms? OpenRC

On 02/21/2018 10:07 PM, A. Wan wrote: Is there even one other compelling reason for using systemd? Many. To name a few, simple replacements for logging (journal), cron (timers), sntp, dhcp, resolver, on-demand daemons, etc. Simplified management of services, auto dependency resolution for

[lfs-dev] Fwd: Fwd: Re: libstdc++.la (and others)

Grr... Forwarded Message Subject: Fwd: Re: [lfs-dev] libstdc++.la (and others) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 16:40:43 -0600 From: DJ Lucas <blfs-...@lucasit.com> Reply-To: d...@linuxfromscratch.org To: BLFS Development List <blfs-...@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> Who

[lfs-dev] Fwd: Re: LFS-SVN systemd v236 manpage missing on anduin

On 12/23/2017 12:49 PM, Alain Toussaint wrote: Hello, I am starting to download and regenerate LFS & BLFS svn (since reporting md5 checksum to the list) and it turn out that the wget-file include that link: http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/systemd-man-pages-236.tar.xz Yet, the package

Re: [lfs-dev] Ridding LFS/BLFS of libtool archives

Moved to LFS-Dev. On 12/02/2017 10:31 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: DJ Lucas wrote: As a few of you know, following the move to meson for glib and a couple of upgrade issues for people using Porg and some homegrown PMs, I've been working on ridding us of the libtool archives in a local copy

Re: [lfs-dev] Dangling symlinks left after LFS build completion

On 10/28/2017 08:43 PM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 19:32 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: On Sat, 2017-10-28 at 11:52 +0200, NicP wrote: Hi, Just finished LFS 8.1 systemd stable version. I noticed 4 dangling symlinks pointing to the /tools directory :

Re: [lfs-dev] systemd using meson and ninja

On October 12, 2017 9:36:32 AM CDT, John Burrell wrote: >I installed systemd using the dev version of the systemd book. > >When starting LFS for the first time I get a message that: > >systemd-user-sessions.service fails > >This is because the file: >

Re: [lfs-dev] New packages in LFS

On 09/23/2017 05:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I have not changed systemd. I ask either DJ or renodr to make changes and test the systemd build using meson/ninja. Done. Of note, we will no longer be producing our own tarball in favor of using upstream directly. We will provide only the man

Re: [lfs-dev] meson and ninja

On 09/18/2017 08:47 PM, Armin K. wrote: On 19.9.2017 0:48, Bruce Dubbs wrote: NOTE: Please trim when replying. With the above info, the question is how to incorporate it into LFS/BLFS. To install meson/ninja into LFS requires four new packages: libffi, python3, ninja, and meson. I've

Re: [lfs-dev] lfs-multilib question

On September 7, 2017 10:52:07 PM CDT, Ken Moffat wrote: >On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:12:05PM +1100, evanation wrote: >> Can I recompile other libraries as needed, but not in the >installation process? >> > >Please don't top post on LFS lists - it makes it much harder to

Re: [lfs-dev] Building from an old system

On 08/16/2017 11:29 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: After the discussions about newer minimum versions in glibc-2.26, I've given 8.1-rc1 a try on my oldest system (LFS-7.6 with gcc-4.9.1, binutils-2.24, glibc-2.20, kernel 3.18.20). It has now got through LFS, and into the BLFS essentials. I saw more

Re: [lfs-dev] LFS commit 11279.

On 08/14/2017 06:35 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:40:33PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I have just committed the latest tool chain to LFS svn. The packages now in the book are probably the final package versions for LFS-8.1. I intend to create lfs-8.1-rc1 tomorrow. At that

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc 7.2.0 released

On August 14, 2017 4:42:35 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:44:29AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> >>> I also removed --enable-obsolete-rpc but I need to investigate more. >>> >> Doesn't that break nss ? >> >> Or, see Armin's

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-7.2 delayed.

On August 9, 2017 6:51:44 AM CDT, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: >On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 08:15 +0200, Thierry Nuttens wrote: >> 2017-08-09 7:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Dubbs : >> > Ken Moffat wrote: >> > >> > > ĸen, beginning to think building from scratch is

[lfs-dev] higgs going down for maintenance

I'll be stopping httpd on higgs for 10 minutes this afternoon to make some configuration changes. Expected downtime will be from 20:05-20:15 UTC. --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-dev] Future LFS issues

On 07/30/2017 03:34 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 18:41 +1000, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 18:32 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: systemd-234 has been released. In the NEWS file they now want to go to a meson build and eliminate autotools. I took a look at

Re: [lfs-dev] systemd-234 build failed

On 07/20/2017 06:06 PM, xinglp wrote: That's OK. Thanks a lot. Okay, it's now fixed. All files have been updated. Thanks for sticking with this. PKG_CONFIG_PATH should not be needed now. --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/

Re: [lfs-dev] systemd-234 build failed

On July 20, 2017 10:38:16 AM CDT, xinglp <xin...@gmail.com> wrote: >2017-07-20 21:17 GMT+08:00 DJ Lucas <d...@linuxfromscratch.org>: >> >> Can try setting >PKG_CONFIG_PATH="/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/tools/lib/pkgconfig" and see if >that works around it. >

Re: [lfs-dev] systemd-234 build failed

On July 20, 2017 5:49:25 AM CDT, xinglp <xin...@gmail.com> wrote: >2017-07-19 13:25 GMT+08:00 DJ Lucas <blfs-...@lucasit.com>: >> >> >> On 07/19/2017 12:19 AM, xinglp wrote: >>> >>> Log is: >>> GPERFsrc/core/load-fragment-gperf.c &g

Re: [lfs-dev] Future LFS issues

On 07/19/2017 04:04 PM, Richard Melville wrote: So it looks like you might be able to limit parallel builds with -j, but I'll admit it's not clear. Yes, either form works too. --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/

Re: [lfs-dev] Future LFS issues

On July 13, 2017 6:32:54 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >systemd-234 has been released. In the NEWS file they now want to go to >a >meson build and eliminate autotools. I took a look at meson.build file >on >the new systemd. The file is 2528 lines long. This is supposed to

Re: [lfs-dev] Ch6 build order flaw in 7.10 (8.0?)

On May 15, 2017 12:41:51 PM CDT, Paul Rogers wrote: >I've been double, triple checking for /tools contamination, and found >another. (I fully understand and can fix my autom4te issue now.) >Libtool depends on dd which, in coreutils, isn't built until much >later. >The

Re: [lfs-dev] A couple of small notes

On 03/11/2017 07:41 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Hello, I was just going through the latest book again as a reference/review. Nice job on keeping it up to date and valid! There were just a couple of small things I noticed which could possibly be improved. In section 5.5, Gcc pass 1, the

Re: [lfs-dev] 6.13. Binutils-2.27 tests

On 02/28/2017 02:41 PM, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: Hi, I noticed that during the 'make -k check' the whole gold test suite (240+ tests) is skipped due to an error. from http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/8.0/i7-4700MQ/test-logs/080-binutils-2.27 make[6]: Leaving directory

Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] r11190 - trunk/BOOK/chapter06

On 02/24/2017 10:12 AM, bdu...@higgs.linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: bdubbs Date: Fri Feb 24 08:12:41 2017 New Revision: 11190 Log: Text clarification Modified: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/coreutils.xml Modified: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/coreutils.xml

Re: [lfs-dev] gold

On 02/07/2017 09:35 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 07:28:24PM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: On 02/04/2017 10:58 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:07:55AM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: Interesting, I had just suggested to Bruce (the other day on IRC) that we go ahead

Re: [lfs-dev] gold

On 02/04/2017 10:58 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:07:55AM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote: Interesting, I had just suggested to Bruce (the other day on IRC) that we go ahead and do it. I've seen absolutely no failures with bfd as the default linker with both big DEs installed. I

Re: [lfs-dev] gold

On February 3, 2017 9:51:29 PM CST, Ken Moffat wrote: >I'm increasingly starting to think that I'm going to stop building >the gold linker (it will save me a little time in /tools by not >building bison, and rather more time in the binutils tests in >chroot). > >This

  1   2   >