Re: Bison host requirement
On Sunday 15 April 2007 05:54, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Is it possible to build bison in Chapter 5 before bash? This way, we'll avoid bumping the requirement. But Bison-1.875 is over 4 years old, so it's not like it's an onerous requirement. Linux-2.6.0 (3.33 years old) compiled with GCC-3 is, I'd guess, the harderst host requirement to meet, and we've had no complaints yet. If we continue the road of bumping requirements, we'll automatically go to the statement that the only valid host is the not-yet-released version of our LiveCD. famous last wordsI can't see, given our current host requirements, the above ever happening/famous last words. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: File reg_startend patch
El Sábado, 7 de Abril de 2007 18:57, Matthew Burgess escribió: Thanks Greg, I'll remove the patch some time this week. Matt, don't forget this one, there is no trac entry for it. -- 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/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: File reg_startend patch
On Sunday 15 April 2007 10:29, M.Canales.es wrote: El Sábado, 7 de Abril de 2007 18:57, Matthew Burgess escribió: Thanks Greg, I'll remove the patch some time this week. Matt, don't forget this one, there is no trac entry for it. Yep. thanks. It's in my working copy and I'll be kicking a build off soon with all the other package upgrades in Trac. Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [RFC] Bootscript changes
On 4/11/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Attached is a series of patches that hopefully resolves all the issues below. The functions seem to work fine in my testing. I'll describe them a bit below. No one's said anything, so I'm committing these patches. I'm also going to roll a new bootscripts tarball some time soon. One other idea I had. What about adding a -s argument to statusproc so that it won't return any output? This is in line with the other *proc functions that silence they're output. This would allow me to not redirect output for this: statusproc process do something that would bomb without the running process -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [RFC] Bootscript changes
On 4/15/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One other idea I had. What about adding a -s argument to statusproc so that it won't return any output? This is in line with the other *proc functions that silence they're output. This would allow me to not redirect output for this: statusproc process do something that would bomb without the running process Of course, I forgot to add the -s argument, statusproc -s process. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
