El Sábado, 16 de Septiembre de 2006 21:04, M.Canales.es escribió: > Looks that it was actually easy to do. > > Starting a build now to see what happens...
The build was very good. Both the SBU-DU report and ICA/farce analysis has been generated. But I notice a new diff in the ICA/faarce results for iteration-1 versus iteration-2. In iteration-2 /usr/include/bits/syscall.h has this lines added: #define SYS_inotify_add_watch __NR_inotify_add_watch #define SYS_inotify_init __NR_inotify_init #define SYS_inotify_rm_watch __NR_inotify_rm_watch Dan, should that be reported to lfs-dev and investigated? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
