tom wrote:
I just installed mozilla and put this in my kde command line /usr/bin/mozilla
it loads but I cant connect to internet..
Konqueror works fine, am I missing something?
Try posting to blfs-support, unless of course 'ping www.google.com'
doesn't work from the command line. It might be
tom wrote:
released 4.1.10 thought you like to know..
Please inform blfs-dev instead, that is if their bugzilla database
doesn't already have a related item in it
(http://blfs-bugs.linuxfromscratch.org).
Please see http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#which-list for a list of
the available
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
You might want to revisit section 4.5 and change the dicussion to
Standard Build Unit :)
Thanks Bruce. I made the suggested changes apart from the link to the
SBU page. Once the pages are in the website repo I'll update the link.
I'll probably get to it some time next
Michael Labuschke wrote:
(sorry for the short info about the issue.
I wrote mazur a mail. Explaining everthing but haven't got an answer yet)
Please either link to the email you posted (assuming it was to a mailing
list), or explain what the build errors were you encountered, and how we
can
Andrew Benton wrote:
Something like this?
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support/2005-March/054018.html
Yep, thanks. If someone could keep me posted on Mariusz' response to
this I'll make sure LFS addresses it as soon as possible.
Regards,
Matt.
--
Stef Bon wrote:
And what's wrong with my quoting?
There's rarely any reason to have to quote an entire email.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alex Potter wrote:
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] linux-libc-headers 2.6.11.1
Thanks Alex. In future please check bugzilla before reporting new
versions of packages.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
When the modified udev bootscript sets /sbin/udevsend as a
handler, everything is ready.
I thought the necessary changes had already got into the bootscripts
repository. If not, please submit a bug report to bugzilla, preferably
with a patch too.
Thanks,
Matt.
--
Joel Miller wrote:
We wouldn't have done
exercises with them if it wasn't acceptable to use them.
So are you telling me that all those Visual Basic exercises I did means
it's actually acceptable to use in the real world? :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
TheOldFellow wrote:
However, even in American
these are just guidelines. But real English uses rule-breaking quite
regularly for emphasis and contrast.
LOL, thanks Richard :) I was also taught that conjunctions shouldn't be
used at the start of sentences. Often, it seems the most natural way
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:55:18PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
I mentioned this same thing at the beginning of this month. I
have several systems running current SVN versions of LFS without
any issues I can think of.
Sorry for not replying to the OP - it got lost in the recent news-server
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Probably best to delay it for a while, as a brand new release of
the bootscripts was introduced to LFS a couple of days ago. These
bootscripts probably should be tested out before releasing a
version which includes them.
Opinions?
That's what the branch is for :) I'm
Folks,
I've just created the 6.1 release branch. For the incredibly impatient
you can pull it from svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/branches/6.1. Until
then, you'll have to wait until I render the book and post a link to it :)
The idea is that in roughly 2 weeks we'll release 6.1. So, can
M.Canales.es wrote:
d) Is a PDF look fix ;-)
Of course. I will trust anything from anyone (as long as their name is
Manuel :)) that touches stuff in the stylesheets/ directory as there is
some serious black-magic juju going on in there :) However, rule c)
still applies - i.e. if the fix is
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
If you want to post to a list, you can still do so via
email at the corresponding list address.
Is there a way to configure Thunderbird to set the recipient
automatically for me? I prefer to use the news server, but can accept
that keeping it read-only is probably the
Folks,
Now that the 6.1 cycle has started, here's what's on the cards for
future LFS releases. Whether these make it all into the same release,
or whether they're staggered over multiple releases depends on how
quickly they can stabilise and the amount of development and testing
resources
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Until then, you'll have to wait until I render the book and post a link to it :)
OK, it's now rendered and available at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
What remains is reported at:
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1068
Many thanks Alexander. Those don't seem too risky to get into 6.1, or
are they? They certainly seem much closer to bug fixes than introducing
new functionality.
Cheers,
Matt.
--
Greg Schafer wrote:
In case anyone is interested, I have a GCC4 based build working really
well.
Did they get the fixincludes in there to allow building from a host with
a stock glibc-2.3.4 install on it - i.e. they fix the invalid C in
pthread.h? If not, then we'll have to wait until at least
Ken Moffat wrote:
Did I miss the LFS editorial decision not to test
package upgrades ?
Ouch! There obviously was no such decision. I did do a 'make check' on
the latest version but on my bastardised LFS-6.0 box (i.e. LFS-6.0 with
various package upgrades). From that post:
Note: if e2fsprogs
Mike Hernandez wrote:
I tried building testing on my P4 desktop and got a failure during
glibc's make check in chapter 5:
make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/tools/build/glibc-build/nptl/tst-cancelx17.out] Error 1
I get:
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-cancel17.out] Error 1
make[3]: ***
Ken Moffat wrote:
Me again,
hotplug has `mkdir /var/log/hotplug' - I get
cannot create directory `/var/log/hotplug': File exists
Thanks Ken. Added to my TODO list.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
Steffen R. Knollmann wrote:
In the description of e2fsprogrs the creation of and changing to the
build-directory should be switched with the sed to fix the testsuite
error; or the fix needs a '../' for it to work. This affects testing and
development.
Thanks, fixed.
Matt.
--
Folks,
There's a bunch of security related patches at
http://www.infodrom.org/projects/sysklogd/download/patches/. None of
them appear to be in the huge patch we already have for sysklogd.
Indeed all of them (with the exception of the syslogd.byhost.diff) apply
with offsets following the
Robert Connolly wrote:
[top-post rearranged, unneccessary quotes trimmed. Please don't top
post, and learn to trim your responses please -
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#netiquette]
There's a bunch of security related patches at
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hey Guys,
Would just like to ask if the target date for the release of 6.1 has
changed at all.
I think it will have to, given the occasional problems people are seeing
with the localnet bootscript, and the fact that I've a fairly lengthy
TODO list still to get through.
Andrew Benton wrote:
But hotplug is included and installed in the book so that passage should
probably be re-worded?
Thanks Andrew, I think it's more accurate now. Let me know if you think
it needs altering though.
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Jeremy Utley wrote:
But, how is someone who wants to use this branch to do so when the other
packages are perhaps 2 or 3 months behind?
Why is it going to take 2-3 months to get the book up to speed? The
techniques for dealing with the specs file are already known. That just
leaves
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
It appears the BLFS book hasn't rendered for the last couple of
cycles. It appears stuck on the 4/16 changes. Is there anything in
the logs or elsewhere that may show what is going on?
I just tried rendering it manually. It's having trouble with the latest
versions
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
gettext 0.14.4 requires creation of one more locale on glibc page
I took a quick look at the configure script and couldn't determin what
effects having those 2 locales has, i.e. what features of gettext rely
on those locales. I'm assuming it's just some tests, but
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I'm inclined to drop the text about the separate tarballs and just keep
it to the one full package.
Sounds sensible enough.
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Nathan Coulson wrote:
Matt(?) was having some problems with it, because some things in /proc
did not exist when that was called.
Yep, here's my '/etc/sysctl.conf':
net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 0
dev.rtc.max-user-freq = 1024
kernel.shmmax = 2147483648
kernel.sem = 250 32000 100 128
fs.file-max =
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
At least /proc/sys/dev/rtc/max-user-freq does not exist until the rtc
module is loaded. (As long as enhanced real-time clock is configured
as a module, anyway. Build it into the kernel and the problem goes
away. ;-P )
Well, not for me it didn't. RTC is compiled in, and I
Benjamin Laemmle wrote:
imho compilation of binutils depends on bison
I assume you're reading LFS-6.0? If so this has already been corrected
in the upcoming 6.1 release, a copy of which can be read at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/.
Thanks,
Matt.
--
Sébastien Vajda wrote:
Don't we need something like tree at
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/ice/tree/
to be able to run this test?
Not really. Note that my perl knowledge is rather basic, but if I
understand that test correctly, 'tree' should only be called if the test
has failed anyway. Does
Peter Ennis wrote:
Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20050417
Peter, Tony,
I've finally managed to catch up with all your suggestions! Thanks a
lot for taking the time to find and report them. I've not acted on all
of them though, and some of them I took the liberty of slightly
rewording. The
Jim Gifford wrote:
Peter and Tony,
I would appreciate it if you guys would do the same thing for the new
cross-lfs book, that way it's correct now instead of later.
Jim, would you mind merging r5317 and r5318 to the cross-lfs branch
please? I'm about to merge to testing now.
Cheers,
Matt.
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Please redo your analysis.
OK, first admission - this wasn't analysis of any kind. It was simply
a gut reaction to the sysctl bootscript failing. I needed the box up
pretty quick, so just moved the sysctl script to workaround the problem.
The existence of a /dev
Ken Moffat wrote:
I see testing is moving on - did the 6.1 release get pulled ?
Nope, not pulled, just delayed whilst things went slightly manic at work
and at home. I think things are settling down now, so managed to get a
bit of work done catching up on the outstanding 6.1 items last night.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I'm not sure what kind of machinery would be needed, but I made a simple
dev.d script for rtc, to handle this case.
Wonderful, thanks!
Number one, it'll print an error to somewhere (syslog? udev's log? the
system console? no idea) if your rtc module wasn't configured to
Folks,
I'm proposing we stop tracking/using HJL's binutils. Here's my reasons:
1) It adds host dependencies of bison and flex
2) Recent bugs with HJL (stripping libc.a) have been hard to diagnose
and fix
3) FSF recently released 2.16, bringing it back up to speed with modern
features we were
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Does this imply that LFS will drop bison and flex?
From chapter 5, certainly.
If so, they will
need to be added to BLFS. I would hope that they would be retained in
Chapter 6 as they are a part of an overall development base.
Well, I really don't mind keeping bison around. As
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Well, actually it is the doxywizard program which doesn't compile.
Are you saying it compiles for you, using current LFS book
instructions?
I've just tested it here and it's working for me. I'm as baffled as
I've no doubt you will be Randy! That said, I've now got a 157K
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Or should it be:
if [ $CUR_LENGTH -eq 0 ]; then
instead, to do a numeric comparison? (Either with or without the
quotes. It shouldn't matter unless $CUR_LENGTH might be unset.)
I was thinking the same thing.
(OTOH, is that a bashism too? I'd hope not, but I don't know for
Steve Crosby wrote:
Just drop the [ construct altogether and use /bin/test exclusively?
Well, I'd much prefer just punting on this. Let's just assume that if a
shell implements 'test' then it does so in a standards conformant
manner. If it doesn't then the affected user reports it as a bug
Donald G Porter wrote:
Hello,
I'm one of the maintainers of the Tcl programming language.
Lately we're seeing a small but increasing number of bug reports
submitted against Tcl coming from people attempting to follow the
Linux From Scratch outline.
Thanks for the heads up! We try to have folks
Ag Hatzim wrote:
Since in LFS,we dont have a package manager to synchronize the package database,
i think it would be very usefull a new list dedicated for to monitor new
releases
from the packages that belongs to the LFS/BLFS.
Well, I generally keep track of new package releases simply by
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
KERNEL=rtc, RUN=/path/to/the/script
Do we need a script for it though? I've not tested it yet (of course!
:) ), but this is what I was thinking:
KERNEL=rtc, ACTION=add, \
RUN=echo 1024 /proc/sys/dev/rtc/max-user-freq
KERNEL=eth0, ACTION=add, \
RUN=echo 0
John Profic wrote:
1) my version of sed do not support -i switch at all (it is 3.0.2) and I
used method (cp file file-ORIG; sed ... file-ORIG file) seen in
cross-lfs (scripts) to workaround this
That suggests your host is really old, though I suppose the whole point
of cross-lfs is to
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I'll keep that in mind and work it in as I make other edits, if that's
alright with you.
Fine by me :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
The obvious answer (for me anyway) to how do I parse a config file is
use flex and bison to build a grammar.
And the obvious answer to me (being a C++ kinda guy) is to use 'Spirit'
from the boost libraries (http://www.boost.org/) :)
Matt.
--
Jim Gifford wrote:
Please list your comments as a go or no go.
No go, Jim.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/lex.html
suggests that it's a reasonable expectation for 'lex' to be installed on
a Unix system, hence that's what we'll do. It's not in the LSB, nor in
the
Jon Ringle wrote:
On Thursday 26 May 2005 16:44, Jim Gifford wrote:
What about when you build on x86 for a different platform then chroot is
not an option at all. That's the reason we added that to the book.
I am working with the cross-lfs scripts to target an arm processor from an x86
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Keep it all on the same machine, but
change the chroot to a reboot section so that you can reboot into a
kernel that supports 64-bit. Where there is need to do that all on
another machine (an entirely different arch family) you get pointed
toward a hint.
Am I
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Thanks for the case-in-point, Byran.
Was the SE-Linux afflicted FC3 distro also because of host infection, or
was that down to incorrect instructions? Basically what was happening
was that (I think) glibc was being built in chapter 5 against the host's
se-linux
Jim Gifford wrote:
That was discussed, I think manuel was going to try doing an include for
that information.
Why not simply list OpenSSH/OpenSSL as host requirements then, and point
folks via a hyperlink to BLFS?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Archaic wrote:
I suggest:
The reason for this is that the programs in /tools are no longer needed.
Since they are no longer needed you can delete the /tools directory if
so desired or tar it up and keep it to build another final system.
Look good to me.
I suggest:
Removing /tools will also
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:29:33PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
2b) How are we getting installed size? Bruce, I noticed you do
df -k $LFS | grep $LFS | sed -e s/ \{2,\}/ /g | cut -d' ' -f3, but
df -k /x |grep /x | awk ' { print $3 }' is less expensive. Either
^^
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Declan Moriarty wrote:
may I suggest you add the ruleset
70_sare_spoof.cf to trusted rulesets on your spamassassin installation,
as that will catch the forged ebay and forged paypal spam causing so
much annoyance these days. Vipul's Razor also catches about 50% of them.
It
Thomas Reitelbach wrote:
I don't see any development or discussion about 6.1 anymore on the lists, so
what is blocking the release?
Maybe there is a good reason, so i thought i could simply ask... ;-)
Well, whether it's good or not I don't know but I'll give you the reason
anyway.
David Jensen wrote:
1. The order of the files in flex-2.5.31-debian_fixes-2.patch may
sometimes trigger regenerating scan.c, which causes the build to fail if
flex is not already installed.
-- Solution: Move the scan.c section of the patch to after the scan.l
section. Build and install per
Jim Gifford wrote:
Does the problem occur with the -4 patch I posted a while back??
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/flex/flex-2.5.31-debian_fixes-4.patch
Yes, visual inspection shows the scan.c hunk will be applied before the
scan.l hunk
Matt.
--
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt, Jeremy, and LFS-Dev,
What are you feelings on cross-lfs moving to GCC 4.x?
There's already a gcc4 branch, but it's not seen any commits yet. It's
now become outdated with regard to trunk. I'll wait for gcc-4.0.1 to
come out (they're just ironing out the last
Archaic wrote:
ISTM --with-included-regex be kept for chapter 5, though. The reasoning
would be a) can't depend on host's glibc, and b) we are using C locale.
Matt, I'll make the change to chapter 6 right now, but I'll off commit
until you decide.
Sounds sane to me...but then again what do I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I don't think the last two binutils
commands belong in the timing of the SBU, as these two commands
aren't involved in the build process of the *binutils* pass1
chapter 5 package. These two commands are used as part of the
setup for binutils in pass2. To me I see this
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Forwarding a message from linux-hotplug-devel list.
Thanks for the heads up, Alexander!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: archaic
Date: 2005-06-23 11:22:06 -0600 (Thu, 23 Jun 2005)
New Revision: 6128
Fine for testing, with the obvious omission of the erroneous Makefile
change :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Fine for testing, with the obvious omission of the erroneous Makefile
change :)
Whoops, this should have gone to lfs-book of course. Sorry for the
noise folks.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Jueves, 23 de Junio de 2005 08:24, Archaic escribió:
I made some changes in my WC and created a diff to see if something like
this might be usable and worthwhile. Basically it just keeps us from
having to update the test results link in abouttestsuites.xml.
Look a
David Jensen wrote:
I noticed on linking a gtkmm app that the gcc source directory is listed
as a library directory. e.g.
(snip)
-L/tools/build/gcc-build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/tools/build/gcc-build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-L/tools/build/gcc-build/gcc
This is
Archaic wrote:
Sorry, I thought I'd already replied to this :(
Issue 1:
I really can't tell which method of referencing an 'info' page is better.
Issue 2:
A base /etc/profile below sets
sed s/A/The/
Agreed.
Issue 3:
such locales are not supported by LFS in any way.
Hi folks,
After a very long delay [1] it looks as if we really are nearly there.
There are two bugs remaining to be fixed (1582 and 1586) which are
simply textual changes. I'll be doing a 6.1 pre-release tomorrow night
(~19:00-20:00 UTC). I'd like to get 6.1 out this weekend, though I
Archaic wrote:
Those are contradictory. 1586 required command changes.
Of course it did. I was just testing you :) Errm, what can I say?
Whoops :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Archaic wrote:
I have 2 concerns about the following 2 items:
Agreed on all points. Care to tackle this before I roll the pre-release?
Thanks,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Archaic wrote:
If a swap partition was created, it will need to be initialized as a
swap partition
If a swap partition was created, it will need to be initialized for use
Err, wow is all I can say to that! Of course, this change is fine. Let
me know if you want me to squash any of these
Archaic wrote:
I suggest adding one more bullet:
Finally, your current linux system must be running a 2.6 kernel.
Note that the prerequisites page appears to be a 'reader must know/have
done x/y/z prior to building LFS'. Host system requirements are
distinct from this and therefore
Jim Gifford wrote:
Ya, but if somebody downloads it and uses it, we should be proactive.
If somebody downloads something that so obviously interacts with the
toolchain like that then our response should be this is beyond LFS, let
us know how you get on or simply FBBG! There's only so much
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I'll be doing a 6.1 pre-release tomorrow night
(~19:00-20:00 UTC).
Well, the astute amongst you will have noticed this never happened!
Archaic and I are busy doing a final review of the text. This should be
all done by tomorrow night...honest!
Given that slippage
Hi everyone!
I finally got around to updating the SpamAssasin rulesets for the
mailing lists today (thanks to Jim Gifford for giving me explicit
instructions!).
I'd be interested to know if you:
1) Notice a significant decrease in the levels of spam on the lists
2) Continue to receive spam
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
For those who have all but given up on me, I'm still alive and haven't
abandoned LFS
Hello, stranger. :)
I also managed to get the next three days off
so I can finally play catch-up with regards to LFS.
I suspect you'll need more than three days! Of course, if I
Archaic wrote:
While diffing both sets of XML to ensure all merges were made, I came
across a question. Why is the inetutils kernel header patch not in
trunk?
Looks like it went missing by mistake during the conversion to using
entities for the patches stuff. tinyurl provided due to the
Archaic wrote:
Care to handle it for me while I concentrate on changes that affect the
testing branch?
Yup, done in r6335. I purposefully left it until you'd seen it in case
it caused problems with your current working copies.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Bernard Leak wrote:
Dear List,
The problem was discovered while working through blfs (building
libgpg-1.0),
OK, could someone who has a few spare cycles and a machine to do so
please build an LFS-6.1-pre1 system by the book? Then run the following
script and post the output? On my
Mario Fetka wrote:
i also had this problem.
after applying the fedora gawk patches the problem has gone
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gawk/
Thanks for the pointer. The dfa_cache patch solved the issue for me.
Bernard, could you apply the following to gawk-3.1.4 and report your
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Kim McCall wrote:
The 6.1-pre1 book's package list,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1-pre1/chapter03/packages.html
recommends downloading Shadow (4.0.9) - 996 KB:
ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/software/shadow/
I'll add a note, similar to that for 'file
Ahmed El-Daly wrote:
Pretty slick. Much nicer than the old one. Some of the links point to
nowhere though. I guess that will be fixed as it goes in production.
Yep, and they'll be fixed even sooner if you would be so kind to specify
exactly *which* links are broken :)
Regards,
Matt.
--
Hai Zaar wrote:
Hi, all!
I've passed through roadmap in the wiki. Some comments on the following line:
* make (no known compatible alternatives, any issues with 3.80?)
There is actually one problem with make-3.80. I've pointed it out
about a year ago during LFS-6.0 test phase. Read more
David Fix wrote:
Just wondering... I'm going through the SVN-20050705 book, and I notice
that it's still got binutils 2.16
Well, it did up until 07:26 (UTC) today :) I upgraded it this morning,
it should show up in tomorrows render.
Regards,
Matt.
--
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1-pre2. This pre-release for the upcoming final 6.1 revision of
the book includes a patch to fix a recently disclosed security bug in zlib.
You can read the book online at
Ken Moffat wrote:
Should I expect /mnt/lfs/dev to be busy when I come to shut down after
building 6.1-pre2 (in an xterm, if it matters) ?
Not if you were using the version specified in that book. Later
versions kick off a daemon, which one has to kill prior to unmounting.
I can't think
Chris Staub wrote:
The coreutils installation page (in both Chapters 5 and 6) strongly
recommends adding DEFAULT_POSIX2_VERSION=199209 to the configure
command.
When the next version of coreutils is released, that whole thing can be
removed. Changes/clarifications were made to the spec to
Kim McCall wrote:
There is a place 2/3 of the way down the page that reads
This results in in a final locale setting of ...
Thanks very much for the report. Fixed in r6465. I'll be merging this
and some other typo fixes into the 6.1 branch shortly.
Regards,
Matt.
--
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1. This release includes a large number of package upgrades
(including Linux-2.6.11.12, GCC-3.4.3 and Glibc-2.3.4) and security
fixes (including the recently disclosed zlib vulnerability). It also
includes a large
Hi folks.
I recreated the gcc4 branch this evening and have updated it so that
chapter 5 should compile using gcc-4.0.1. The branch is available to
view at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/gcc4/, or you can check
out the source XML using:
`svn co
Thomas Trepl wrote:
Mr. Patrakov asked me to put a small list of
combinations of LC_ALL/LANG to that list here.
I'm quite sure he wouldn't have pointed you to the wrong list. BLFS,
not LFS, installs fluxbox. Please report this to blfs-dev or (probably
better)
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Chris Staub wrote:
The space at the the beginning should be removed.
Yes I noticed this one too. It's changed here in my working copy, I was
just waiting for an opportunity to apply it.
Thanks to both of you. I actually had this changed in my scripts, I
just
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I've been looking over the new gcc4 book. Currently the instructions
there have us using glibc-2.3.5 and patching it heavily to work with
gcc-4.0.1.
It's not patched anywhere near as heavily as flex :)
I would like to suggest that for this particular
Chris Staub wrote:
The perl command for adjusting the specs file has been changed to a sed
command, but the text right above the command still refers to it as a
perl command.
Thanks Chris. Fixed in r6553.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Chris Staub wrote:
This should probably read something like ...adjusts where the gcc
fixincludes script searches for headers, so that it fixes only the new
headers under /tools, not the ones from your host system.
Indeed it should :)
Also, I noticed that the description of what fixincludes
Chris Staub wrote:
1. Inetutils won't compile, but I found a patch here -
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=postid=1750252#post1750252
That would be because I've not gotten around to building chapter 6 yet
(see
1 - 100 of 905 matches
Mail list logo
