Tony Sauri wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:45, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Well, the larger parts are actually not in the book. It simply
>> refers one to the CD-ROM. At least, the paper version of the book
>> does. However, I'll reasearch what you suggest.
>
> Are these the scripts you are looking for
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:45, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> Well, the larger parts are actually not in the book. It simply
> refers one to the CD-ROM. At least, the paper version of the book
> does. However, I'll reasearch what you suggest.
Are these the scripts you are looking for?
Free Backup Utilities:
Thanks for the response, but I think I am going to take the rest of
the week to brush up on some basic bash scripting. I have a feeling
that I jumped into this a bit quick.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: Se
Dan McGhee wrote:
> You are absolutely right, but I would not characterize it as a problem,
> but something to be considered and about which to make a decision. In
> fact, it's the reason I posted. Using only the instructions in the LFS
> book, this header file would be replaced three times--w
Danny Engelbarts wrote:
>
> That book mentions the site http://backupcentral.com/ i had a quick look and
Thanks. I'll look there. I did do a search, and found the O'Reilly book
for sale from them, but no downloadable content.
> the site appears closely related and offers downloads of various "f
On 07/14/2010 05:23 PM, Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 July 2010 18:07:13 Dan McGhee wrote:
>
>> I hope everyone who reads this is getting a good laugh.
>>
> No, just chuckling and nodding knowingly. As I hobble around on my
> bullet-riddled feet. Need the t-shirt?
>
> As long as *y
On Wednesday 14 July 2010 18:07:13 Dan McGhee wrote:
>
> I hope everyone who reads this is getting a good laugh.
No, just chuckling and nodding knowingly. As I hobble around on my
bullet-riddled feet. Need the t-shirt?
As long as *you* are laughing, all is well.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/m
On 07/14/2010 04:50 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> If you don't replace the kernel's /usr/include/scsi/scsi.h with hte one
> from glibc then you will get build failures later on. I think it was
> udev which failed? Some other things in BLFS (cdrtools?) also fail. Just
> do what a normal LFS install w
On 14/07/10 21:10, Dan McGhee wrote:
> On 07/14/2010 02:33 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>If you weren't using the package users hint, the problem would not
>> arise. Therefore we can assume that allowing the kernel's headers
>> to be installed is the well-tested choice.
>>
> You are absolutely ri
On 07/14/2010 04:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan McGhee wrote:
>
>> I did the rebuild of Chapter 5 make twice. Once using only the patch
>> from Ch. 6 and then with both the patch and the sed command from Ch. 6.
>> There was no change in the glibc tests. However, after applying the
>> patch and
On 14/07/10 20:18, Dan McGhee wrote:
> In addition to the testing failures I've documented in another thread,
> I've also had an installation failure with GlibC-2.11.2. I know the
> cause though. It's a result of using the More Control and Package User
> package management system. I've encounter
Dan McGhee wrote:
> On 07/14/2010 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Dan McGhee wrote:
>>
>>> I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite.
>>> I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build.
>>>
>>> These are the last three lines of the test log:
>>>
>>>
make[1]: Target `c
On 07/14/2010 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan McGhee wrote:
>
>> I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite.
>> I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build.
>>
>> These are the last three lines of the test log:
>>
>>
>>> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of e
On Wednesday 14 July 2010 22:03:02 Mike McCarty wrote:
> I was at a used book store and selected a copy of O'Reilly's
> "Unix Backup and Recovery" "nutshell" series book for purchase.
> One of our party became ill, and I left early to take her home.
> When I retuned, the others had already made the
On 07/14/2010 02:33 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> If you weren't using the package users hint, the problem would not
> arise. Therefore we can assume that allowing the kernel's headers
> to be installed is the well-tested choice.
>
You are absolutely right, but I would not characterize it as a p
I was at a used book store and selected a copy of O'Reilly's
"Unix Backup and Recovery" "nutshell" series book for purchase.
One of our party became ill, and I left early to take her home.
When I retuned, the others had already made the purchase, and
I wound up with the book, but no companion CD-RO
On 14 July 2010 20:18, Dan McGhee wrote:
>
> The GlibC install wants to install sg.h, scsi.h and scsi_ioctl.h in
> /usr/include/scsi. There are two ways in which to get the install
> process to proceed. The first is for me to manually remove scsi.h and
> let glibc do it's thing. The other is f
In addition to the testing failures I've documented in another thread,
I've also had an installation failure with GlibC-2.11.2. I know the
cause though. It's a result of using the More Control and Package User
package management system. I've encountered similar things in my
previous builds,
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> "Download locations may not always be accessible. If a download location
> has changed since this book was published, Google
> (http://www.google.com/) provides a useful search engine for most
> packages. If this search is unsuccessful, try one of the alternative
May I sug
Simon Geard wrote:
[...]
> That's experience talking, I might add. My LFS builds are almost always
> scripted, and more than once, I've investigated a compile problem that's
Is there a reason you prefer a script to an automated package like
JHALFS?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);
Dan McGhee wrote:
> Reading this I forgot to mention my host system. It's Ubuntu 10.04 and
> I'm running Ubuntu's latest version of 2.6.32-23-generic (wish I hadn't
> wiped out my CLFS build). I'm supplying this info now because in my
> research I found some references in the LFS archives about
On 07/14/2010 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> If you do rebuild the Chapter 5 make and try the Chapter 6 glibc tests
> again, I'd appreciate knowing the results. However, I don't think this
> is what is causing the glibc test errors. I was able to duplicate at
> least some of the errors on the c
Dan McGhee wrote:
> I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite.
> I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build.
>
> These are the last three lines of the test log:
>
>> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.11.2/gl
I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite.
I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build.
These are the last three lines of the test log:
make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.11.2/glibc-2.11.2'
make: *** [check] Er
On 14/07/10 01:20, Dan McGhee wrote:
>
> BUILD=$HOME/$package-build
> cd $BUILD
> #Double sanity check--visual and logical
> pwd
> if [ $(pwd) -ne $BUILD ]
> echo Check the build directory creation
> exit Status 1
>
It seems that you're trying to test whether $BUILD exists after you've
cd'd into i
On 14/07/10 01:30, garth scott wrote:
> I am still getting this warning:
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: present but cannot be compiled
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: see the Autoconf documentation
> configure
26 matches
Mail list logo
