--- On Mon, 2/17/14, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> That's so
> we don't operate (strip) on a running program. After
> that's
> done, look at 6.66. Cleaning
> Up. At that point we are done with /tools.
>
I see - finally :)
Thanks again.
-Joel
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-su
joel kammet wrote:
> Section 6.65, Stripping Again uses /tools/bin/bash when re-entering
> the chroot environment and then /tools/bin/find and /tools/bin/strip.
> I don't suppose it matters, but I was just wondering if there was any
> particular reason that you don't use the bash, find and strip t
--- On Mon, 2/17/14, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] /tools directory
> To: "joel kammet" , "LFS Support List"
>
> Date: Monday, February 17, 2014, 10:34 PM
> joel kammet wrote:
> > But why do you still use /tools/bin/ for
> bash, file, & strip on page 202
joel kammet wrote:
> But why do you still use /tools/bin/ for bash, file, & strip on page 202?
Please don't top post.
What is on page 202? We work from section numbers/names, not the pdf.
The page numbers can change, sometimes radically during a nightly build.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxf
But why do you still use /tools/bin/ for bash, file, & strip on page 202?
From: Bruce Dubbs
To: joel kammet ; LFS Support List
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] /tools directory
joel kammet wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Workin
joel kammet wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Working my way through my first build of LFS 7.4. I'm wondering,
> after building and installing all of the packages in Chapter 6, can
> the /tools directory be deleted? I see that find and strip are used
> in Section 6.65, but we have new copies of those in /b
Greetings.
Working my way through my first build of LFS 7.4. I'm wondering, after
building and installing all of the packages in Chapter 6, can the /tools
directory be deleted? I see that find and strip are used in Section 6.65, but
we have new copies of those in /bin and /usr/bin.
Also, reg
On 02/16/2014 12:59 PM, Frans de Boer wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from
> sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the
> knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit
> while the rest of the wor
On 02/17/2014 12:14 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
> It is a very good work, would have saved me some days, perhaps months,
> as the first build, I gave up, in the past. Thanks.
>
> Optional, for "VMware virtual machines": it could be interpreted
> incorrectly as optional for VM... I would thi
>On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:17:29 + (GMT)
>Richard wrote:
> In keeping with the theme of Fernando's original suggestion, I have
> the source for 'surf' and it was simple to add a dozen lines of C to
> iterate over the entire plugin list and output the descriptions (and
> enabled flag) for each.
>
On Feb 16, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Alexey Orishko wrote:
> I'm aiming at minimum changes needed while moving from legacy udev.
Since udev was merged with systemd, Gentoo crated eudev which is
explained here:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/eudev/
LFS extracted udev from systemd and created Makefile
Em 16-02-2014 12:49, Armin K. escreveu:
> On 02/16/2014 02:38 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:04:12AM +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>>> Hello there,
>>>
>>> I have been spending my time on LFS IRC for a long time now and have
>>> noticed that most users who come for help there get stuc
As a new and inexperienced member of an established community, I try to keep my
mouth shut and avoid interfering. Occasionally I feel strongly enough on a
subject to speak out and I hope that the below does not upset too many people...
> - Original Message -
> From: Frans de Boer
> ...
13 matches
Mail list logo
