On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:04:47AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Anyway, I've now completed my normal desktop on x86_64 with intel
> graphics. In case there is any doubt, I am standing by everything I
> tagged for 7.4 in -rc1, with the exception of two packages (elfutils
> and the ati video drive
Em 31-08-2013 21:16, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:28AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, I just rebuilt LFS in my sandbox with the new packages. It was
>>> extremely clean. I had no FAILs at all and The only Errors were from glibc:
>>>
>>> make[3]
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:28AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> OK, I just rebuilt LFS in my sandbox with the new packages. It was
>> extremely clean. I had no FAILs at all and The only Errors were from glibc:
>>
>> make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:28AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> OK, I just rebuilt LFS in my sandbox with the new packages. It was
> extremely clean. I had no FAILs at all and The only Errors were from glibc:
>
> make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error 1
> make[3]
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 17:22 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
>>> September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
>>
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 17:22 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
> > September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
> > the same time? Th
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 29-08-2013 21:29, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>
> Just to inform that test (to be acknowledged as rc2) finished and javac
> presented me its version without complaining!!!
>
> real589m41.118s
>
> The SBU unit value is equal to 123 seconds.
Thanks. I just started an
Em 29-08-2013 21:29, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Just to inform that test (to be acknowledged as rc2) finished and javac
presented me its version without complaining!!!
real589m41.118s
The SBU unit value is equal to 123 seconds.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/b
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October or
early November. After 5 years, what's a month
On 8/29/2013 6:52 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:04:00PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
>> On 08/29/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October
>>> or early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two? -- Bruce
>> 30 to
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> >> Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October or
> >> early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two?
> >>
> > Ye
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October or
>> early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two?
>>
> Yeah. I might even have upgraded my own server to 7.4 by then.
> But to be h
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:04:00PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October
> > or early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two? -- Bruce
>
> 30 to 60 days?
>
> I would like to see LFS-7
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > OTOH the more we change for newer and shinier versions, the less
> > reason people have for respecting the -rc name.
>
> But we are discussing -rc2, not a stable release. If we didn't have the
> glibc issue, I wouldn't be sug
On 08/29/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October
> or early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two? -- Bruce
30 to 60 days?
I would like to see LFS-7.4 followed by BLFS-7.4 in a timely fashion.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:43:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
September 7. Should we update to the newer
Ken Moffat wrote:
> But if the kernel oopsed then there could be damage elsewhere in
> the kernel's data structures. I haven't been paying close attention
> to the details of what you are doing, but if you were rebuilding
> glibc in the guest then it might just be an example of our general
> "d
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:43:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
> >> September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:45:44PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> {{
> Message from syslogd@VMWLFS74 at Thu Aug 29 15:38:31 2013 ...
> VMWLFS74 kernel: [ 159.826533] task: f60a32a0 ti: f60c4000 task.ti:
> f60c4000
>
> Message from syslogd@VMWLFS74 at Thu Aug 29 15:38:31 2013 ...
> VMWLFS74
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 29-08-2013 08:00, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
>> Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>>> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
>
>>> I suppose that you could also try to just chroot from the host and
>>> rebuild glibc as in Chapter 6 with the sed. I think in that
Em 29-08-2013 08:00, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> I suppose that you could also try to just chroot from the host and
>> rebuild glibc as in Chapter 6 with the sed. I think in that case you
>> might get away with:
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
>> September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
>> the same time? Those all seem to have lower potential for p
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:42:49PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
sorry, hit wrong key, sent it instead of saving it while I went to
check the name of the new keymap.
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > >
>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
> > September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
> > the same ti
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
> September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
> the same time? Those all seem to have lower potential for problems than
> the g
Em 29-08-2013 08:00, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
...
>> I've created a new branch, /LFS/branches/test, that has the modified
>> instructions. You can use that to build a new lfs.
Build started, now.
...
>> sed -i -e 's/static __m128i/inline &/'
Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
>> Bruce, just replacing /lib/libc-2.18.so did no allow the machine to
>> reboot. I am a little too tired to go on now, could do wrong things.
>> Tomorrow morning, will backup and then try a complete replacement of
>> glibc
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 19:17 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> In the glibc build procedures, a simple sed to the glibc code seems to
> fix the problem:
>
> sed -i -e 's/static __m128i/inline &/' sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/strstr.c
>
> I am proposing that we add this to both Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of L
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 07:17:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
>> come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
>> running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrati
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 07:17:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
> come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
> running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrating
> the problem.
>
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Bruce, just replacing /lib/libc-2.18.so did no allow the machine to
> reboot. I am a little too tired to go on now, could do wrong things.
> Tomorrow morning, will backup and then try a complete replacement of
> glibc, and the report back.
>
> If you have the LFS book
Em 28-08-2013 21:17, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
> come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
> running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrating
> the problem.
>
> Upon doing some
Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrating
the problem.
Upon doing some research, we found that a change upstream in glibc was
33 matches
Mail list logo
