Re: hlfs for 64bit
On Monday 12 November 2007 13:19, Jaap Struyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > with: root:/usr/src/linux-2.6.23.1# make > CHK include/linux/version.h > CHK include/linux/utsrelease.h > CALLscripts/checksyscalls.sh # make mrproper # make ARCH=x86_64 config # make ARCH=x86_64 ? pgp9mHTuv2Sdm.pgp Description: PGP signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Default filesystem
On 4/9/07, Ismael Luceno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My system is somewhat deviated, so a normal LFS may take a bit more, > but the gettys/dm will be up as soon as possible, that's the beauty > of initng, it does it without any effort :). InitNG is great __idea__. However, I know two men at least, who tried to use it on a LFS system with no success. Can't you help, please? Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Two typos
Two typos there are in my copy of the BLFS book version 6.2. Installation of the xterm: [QUOTE] Install xterm by running the following commands: TERMINFO=/usr/lib/terminfo ./configure $XORG_CONFIG \ --enable-luit --with-wide-chars \ --with-app-default=$XORG_PREFIX/share/X11/app-defaults && make [/QUOTE] 1. "--with-app-default" -- correct spelling of this option is ' --with-app-defaults' 2. "$XORG_PREFIX/share/X11/app-defaults" -- I think there is no need to have two different directories for the app defaults, so the corrent path should be $XORG_PREFIX/lib/X11/app-defaults Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/26/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some benchmarks against a 32-bit build would be interesting. My > understanding is that 64-bit systems have larger binaries, use more ram, > and are slower the equivalent 32-bit systems unless you are doing some > fairly serious number crunching. Yes, such a benchmark would be interesting. Can you suggest a suitable benchmark tool? Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/21/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be interested if you can reproduce your tens of failures using jhalfs, if
> only to rule out a) mistakes in any build scripts you might be using and/or
> b) mistakes made when copying/pasting/typing the commands from the book.
> scripts or running the commands by hand).
False alarm, sorry.
I'd thought that that was because of patches I'd used, but when I
built my *LFS again from the beginning, these tests mysteriously
succeed. Only three failures: annexc, tst-cancel1, tst-cancel24.
> Again, please note that LFS
> doesn't currently support 64-bit architectures. If you're wanting to build
> LFS on such a box, the recommended method is to use the CLFS instructions.
Nevertheless, now I've finished building a __pure__ 64-bit *LFS
without use of the cross compilation, with slight deviations from the
book. All the libraries now are 64-bit and they're placed in
{,/usr}/lib instead of {,/usr}/lib64. In order to achieve this, six
different patches (four patches for gcc, two for glibc) were written
and applied at a different stages of a build process.
My toolchain:
binutils-2.17.50.0.12
gcc-4.1.2
glibc-2.5
Regards,
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: FC6 (x86_64) as a host system
On 3/20/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And IMHO any mention of the old 64-bit CLFS LiveCD should be removed from > the site. LiveCD that I was talking about is ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS-LiveCD/lfslivecd-x86_64-CRS051009-pre1.iso And yes, now I've noticed that this LiveCD, really, is just a little old: 16.10.2005 01:00:00 So I think you're a quite right. It needs to be removed. :) Fix jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: FC6 (x86_64) as a host system
On 3/20/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What are you talking about? The regular stable 6.2-5 LFS LiveCD also > contains a 64-bit kernel (but the userspace is still 32-bit). It is good > enough to compile x86_64 CLFS using the chroot method. If you're building 64-bit *LFS system WITHOUT use of the cross compilation, you would need the 64-bit host system, I guess. That's what I do. And I think that system wouldn't be neither Cross nor Beyond LFS. Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: FC6 (x86_64) as a host system
On 3/19/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And as Chris told you in your other thread, LFS doesn't support either > multilib or 64-bit systems. You want CLFS: > > http://trac.cross-lfs.org/ > > instead. Well, thanks for deciding for me what I want. :) However, I've seen x86_64 beta LiveCD on the ftp, and I thought it is a development version of the LFS. Is it a CLFS? Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's the test that's run at the end of "make install". Well, I'd run "make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-build-check" just after "make install", and got a few failures only (including posix/annexc and a couple of tests failed due to the absence of libstdc++.so.6), instead of TENS of failures I got running this check before installing. And at the very end of "make install" I've seen a line "Your installation of glibc seems to be ok", so the test you're referring was OK. So that I'm waiting for anyone else to confirm or to reject the report. Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The command in the book should change it so that the test uses the > newly-installed libraries in /lib. About what a test are you saying, that which is execute after (in the process of) "make install", or about bunch of the small test programs that are executed by "make check"? I mean second, and at the time they are executing NO libraries are installed in /lib. If, naturally, you follow the book strictly and run "make install" AFTER "make check". Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, as I mentioned before, it should never have been created anyway. > The actual problem needs to be fixed, not simply worked around with a > symlink. For sure. I've said "a temporary" workaround. Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > LFS does not work for 64-bit systems. Yes, I know. But on a i386 system, these tests should be linked against /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 or against just compiled new linker that resides somewhere in glibc-build directory? Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Remarks on LFS-6.2
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, the "test" it is referring to is done at the end of "make install". > It even specifies this at the beginning of the text you just > copied-and-pasted from the book. If you *are* getting a large number of > testsuite errors, something else is wrong. Ok. I get it. Problem is that all the tests "make check" compiled and executed were for some reason linked to the /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 dynamic loader that was not existed yet, and so, naturally, they were unsuccessful. So can you say me to which a loader should they be? > BTW the symlink will no longer be valid after you chroot. It will be, 'cause I've created it exactly AFTER. :) Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Remarks on LFS-6.2
And two remarks on the LFS-6.2. 1. Section 6.9.1. Installation of Glibc [QUOTE] When running make install, a script called test-installation.pl performs a small sanity test on our newly installed Glibc. However, because our toolchain still points to the /tools directory, the sanity test would be carried out against the wrong Glibc. We can force the script to check the Glibc we have just installed with the following: sed -i \ 's|libs -o|libs -L/usr/lib -Wl,-dynamic-linker=/lib/ld-linux.so.2 -o|' \ scripts/test-installation.pl [/QUOTE] Ok. But "make check" stage goes in the book BEFORE "make install" one. At this point /lib and /usr/lib directories are yet empty and even loader /lib/ld-linux.so.2 doesn't yet exist, so most of the tests will be FAILED. Hehe. 2. Section 5.26.1. Installation of Perl Running "make install" in section 6.9.1 I have discovered that perl binary installed in /tools/bin tries to locate its extensions in /usr/local/* directories, however they were installed in /tools/share/perl5/*. Before entering the chroot environment all is ok, 'cause perl will use modules installed on a host system. But when we are chrooted it can fail, actually installation of glibc failed on my system at some moment, because make could not execute a perl script successfully. In order to verify that is so or not, emit the following command just after the perl is installed: $ /tools/bin/perl -e '$"="\n";print "@INC"' I am going to check it by myself later, now as a temporary workaround I've simply created the following symlink: $ ln -s /usr/local/perl5 /tools/share/perl5 Fix -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
FC6 (x86_64) as a host system
gcc/32/_fixdfdi_s.o lib
gcc/32/_fixunsdfdi_s.o libgcc/32/_floatdidf_s.o libgcc/32/_fixxfdi_s.o libgcc/32
/_fixunsxfdi_s.o libgcc/32/_floatdixf_s.o libgcc/32/_fixtfdi_s.o libgcc/32/_fixu
nstfdi_s.o libgcc/32/_floatditf_s.o libgcc/32/_divdi3_s.o libgcc/32/_moddi3_s.o
libgcc/32/_udivdi3_s.o libgcc/32/_umoddi3_s.o libgcc/32/_udiv_w_sdiv_s.o libgcc/
32/_udivmoddi4_s.o libgcc/32/unwind-dw2_s.o libgcc/32/unwind-dw2-fde-glibc_s.o l
ibgcc/32/unwind-sjlj_s.o libgcc/32/gthr-gnat_s.o libgcc/32/unwind-c_s.o -lc && r
m -f 32/libgcc_s.so && if [ -f 32/libgcc_s.so.1 ]; then mv -f 32/libgcc_s.so.1 3
2/libgcc_s.so.1.backup; else true; fi && mv 32/libgcc_s.so.1.tmp 32/libgcc_s.so.
1 && ln -s libgcc_s.so.1 32/libgcc_s.so
/tools/bin/ld: crti.o: No such file: No such file or directory
$ /tools/bin/ld --verbose | grep SEARCH
SEARCH_DIR("/tools/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("/tools/lib64"); SEAR
CH_DIR("/usr/local/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib64"); SEAR
CH_DIR("/tools/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("/tools/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("
/usr/local/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib");
$ ls -l /usr/lib64/crt*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1648 ¦Þ¦¦T 8 22:54 /usr/lib64/crt1.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1512 ¦Þ¦¦T 8 22:54 /usr/lib64/crti.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 768 ¦Þ¦¦T 8 22:54 /usr/lib64/crtn.o
I don't investigated further, because now I'm building a pure 64-bit
toolchain, using "--disable-multilib", and it compiles
just fine, except of some problems, with locations of various libs and
a few other. If someone is interesting in this, I can
submit my patches and/or ebuilds when I'll finish.
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Enscript Security Patch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:22:47AM -0400, David Fix wrote: >> >> If you use Windows, there's a really nice text editor >> (available for Linux also), that's called EditPad Lite... It's >> free. It does all sorts of nice stuff, including having a function >> for saving in DOS or Unix format. :) Check it out: >> http://editpadlite.com/editpadlite.html. > If you like it, >> there's a pro version with a few more features that's really nice >> too. :) However, the free one will do a ton of stuff and make your >> life easier. :) > > And then there is Vim which doesn't hold back on features > until you pay. > :) Yeah well. :P Editpad lite is wicked cool for Windows people who don't like vim. ;) And it's feature-rich enough that you don't need the pro version. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Build order rationale page
Archaic wrote: > I see now what you are saying and agree. However, this sort of > information seems most useful to developers and the more > highly advanced > readers. Perhaps a note should be placed in chap5's intro linking to > this advanced information with a caveat that it isn't needed for a > regular joe just wanting to build a system. Then place the info at the > end of the book. The way I see it, it is sort of like an index of > knowledge gained and applicable to development, but not really > applicable to following the book to produce a working system. > > Comments? So far I've only seen 3 other people say anything in this > thread. I like seeing everything... :) Perhaps a link to another page with this information would be ok? :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: cleanfs boot script
Gerard Beekmans wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> In the LFS cleanfs script, we have the construct: >> >> cd /tmp && >> find . -xdev -mindepth 1 ! -name lost+found \ >> -delete || failed=1 >> >> Since I test build a lot of apps in /tmp, this instruction can take a >> very long time upon bootup. Can we change it to make the process a >> bit faster? How about something like: >> >> for file in /tmp/*; do >> if [ $file != lost+found ]; then rm -r $file; fi >> done > > One issue that comes to mind are errors "argument list too long." I > don't know if a "for file in *" construct has this problem. It has > happened a few times where a simple "rm dir/*" failed because there > were more files than there is room in rm's argument list. The for construct doesn't have this issue. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: expect-5.43.0 tarball missing from nist.gov website
Dan wrote: > Just a note to both groups that the expect-5.43.0 tarball is back up > at http://expect.nist.gov/ . Here's what the maintainer had to say. > > Dan Sweet. :) Thanks for the followup, Dan. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: ImplementingTrac - Logo
Jeremy wrote: > I think I have it fixed now. If you all could just verify it for me, > please. Also, has anyone looked at this in Konqueror or > Safari? Curious > if it looks alright in those. > > -- > JH Looks great in IE, Jeremy. :) Unfortunately, the box I'm on only has IE 6 (6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519). Sorry for being a pain. :P Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: RFC: Implementing Trac [long]
Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Please watch the trimming so who said what doesn't get mixed > up. Jeremy did not say the above. I did. Whoops! :) Sorry about that. :) > No offense taken. However, I personally do not want to cater to an > application that is notorious for not following standards. > IE users are not our target audience. Sure, it may not be standards-compliant, but a lot of people who come to the site are going to be using IE (at first)... :) I know that I often come to visit from a Windows box (yeah, yeah, it's a work machine. ;)) and I've noticed the half-logo a few times now. :) I may mostly be a lurker, but I like to keep current on what's going on with the LFS/BLFS/CLFS situation, and just thought I'd ping the list about that issue. I just happened to be thinking of the wrong person when I replied there. :P Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: RFC: Implementing Trac [long]
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > David Fix wrote: >> Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> >>> Just pinging this. >> >> >> Just wanted to mention that the penguin still looks funny in IE. ;) > > And this matters...how? > > -- Bruce Just figured if you weren't aware of the issue (many of you are running Mozilla or Firefox), that it didn't slip. :) I can't remember who mentioned it previously, but it was mentioned that there was a CSS issue. :P Not trying to be critical, I'm just trying to be nice. :) Sorry if I offended you in any way, I'll just keep quiet in the future... I thought you were the one in charge of the Trac stuff. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: RFC: Implementing Trac [long]
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Just pinging this. Just wanted to mention that the penguin still looks funny in IE. ;) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Too many flames...
Randy wrote: I hope that one day, after time has had its chance to heal, > that we can sit back and laugh about the other night. Oh hell, I was laughing behind my hand the whole damn time. :P I just had to watch where the bodies fell, is all. ;) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: More ICA
> echo "127.0.0.1 localhost $(hostname)" > /etc/hosts > > This will definitely be overwritten in 7.11. It also takes care of > the perl testsuite case where it is needed. > > What do people think about adding the above command to Ch. 6.7? > > -- > Dan Sounds good to me. :) No harm from it, for sure. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Progress of the build order changes
>>> I've got the necessary changes made in the new alphabetical branch. >> >> >> Quick question... :P What's the alphabetical branch? :) > > http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684 Oho! :) Thanks. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Progress of the build order changes
> I've got the necessary changes made in the new alphabetical branch. Quick question... :P What's the alphabetical branch? :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Parallel build - problem with hint
Hey guys, just working through the SVN book (SVN-20051107), and following the parallel build hint (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/parallelcompiling.txt), I found a problem... For DejaGnu it shows to do the following: DejaGnu-1.4.4 Change: make install To: make -j $CC_PARALLEL install That doesn't work. At least it broke things here... :) I can't remember the error message, but it just didn't work. :) Anyhow, a plain old "make install" is just fine for installing DejaGnu. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: curious almost circular install
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I can't get used to vim, and use emacs. So my host system has emacs. > I only once managed to hack the gettext configure to not believe emacs > existed, so it always tries to compile lisp support or some such and > always fails if I don't have emacs in my toolchain, but do have it on > my host. So I've taken to compiling ncurses before gettext so that I > can install emacs. But now the cvs emacs requires texinfo, which I > had been leaving off my temporary tools. So I guess I have to install > texinfo to install emacs to install gettext but texinfo requires > gettext! wee!!! > > My solution so far has been to install a non-functional emacs. It > doesn't complain about texinfo not being there in chapter 5, and I > wait to install emacs in chapter 6 until after texinfo. > > -Doug I'd just use jed instead of emacs. ;) There's no lisp in it, but it works pretty much the same... Same key bindings, etc... But faster! Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: jhalfs: Ready to go.
> Manuel, do you mind if we switch over to this method of string > comparisons in jhalfs? David's method is nice, but the syntax Seth > suggests is easier to read and doesn't result in forks. Also > it doesn't > require a specific string format. I'd say go with that as well. :P My method was a little chunky, but it was the only thing my sleep-addled brain would come up with on the fly. ;) Good call, Jeremy. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: jhalfs: Ready to go.
> Fixed but using something a little diferent:
>
> if [ ${i:4:8} = "binutils" ] ; then
>
> That will match both 027-binutils-pass1 and 036-binutils-pass2 ;-)
True true... Hopefully the schema doesn't change dramatically on us. :)
Looks good, though. :) Handy little thing to know for a substr kind of
thing for the shell. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: jhalfs: Ready to go.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 19:52, David Fix escribió:
>
>> You bet. :) Just remember to change the -5 to whatever the length
>> of the command is that you're checking against. :)
>
> The number means the lenght of the string after the - right?
Correct... The length of the string you're comparing it to...
So, some examples:
if [ ${i: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
if [ ${i: -4} = "bash" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
if [ ${i: -6} = "expect" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
if [ ${i: -3} = "tcl" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
I don't know if these examples are all correct names, but it gives you the
general idea. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: jhalfs: Ready to go.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 15:36, David Fix escribió:
>
>> Sorry, a bit of a typo, but this is "more" correct:
>>
>> if [ ${i: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
>>
>
> That sounds good and is more portable for when supporting Cross-LFS.
>
> I will test it soon, many thanks :-)
You bet. :) Just remember to change the -5 to whatever the length of the
command is that you're checking against. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: jhalfs: Ready to go.
> I'd suggest something like this:
>
> if [ ${string: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
>
> Dave :)
Sorry, a bit of a typo, but this is "more" correct:
if [ ${i: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
Close, but had the wrong variable. :P
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: jhalfs: Ready to go.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> Feature request: don't hardcode target numbers. E.g., in my UTF-8
>> book, a new package (gdbm) has been added, thus causing number skew
>> for all packages after it. Thus, constructions of the following form
>> fail:
>>
>> if [ "$i" = "082-groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi.
>>
>> Until this is fixed, I can't make my UTF-8 book compatible with
>> jhalfs.
>>
>> BTW, a similar problem will appear soon in trunk due to removal of
>> hotplug.
>>
>
> Yep, I completely agree. The line above, for example, could probably
> read:
>
> if echo $i | grep -q "groff" ; then ... ; fi
>
> Other suggestions are welcome.
I'd suggest something like this:
if [ ${string: -5} = "groff" ] ; then {do something} ; fi
Dave :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to make a formal request for a 6.1.1 release of the LFS > Book. > > Comments? > > -- > JH Yeah, for sure I'm with that. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: This is the end
> Thanks again - I've enjoyed it immensely. And vice-versa. :) Thank you for everything, Jeremy. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Misspell? :)
> The correct list would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've forwarded > your original message. Thanks. > > -- > Archaic Thanks Archaic. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Misspell? :)
I'm not sure if this is the right list to do this in, but I noticed that in the netiquette section of the book (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/#netiquette), publicly is mis-spelled... :) It is currently spelled "publicaly". :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > Indeed. I don't have a lot of time (or even any debugging tools > > installed atm) so I haven't had a chance to do that yet. > But it does > > seem a better course to take if we can spot the exact problem. > > Hrm. Does this spark anything with anyone? Yeah, but dammit, I haven't finished my GCC-4 build. :( Simply because I'm not super-comfortable doing the side-by-side build here... I don't have an extra partition to switch over and do it on. :P Otherwise, I'd be gdb'ing my ass off on the prob. :P Anyone WITH the prob wanna give me shell access? ;) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC-4 (more nagging) :-)
> Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler? All I can respond is "yes, yes, yes!" :) All progress is GOOD progress. ;) Seriously, though, I've been working on compiling a GCC-4 version of LFS, but really wondered myself why the SVN version is not using GCC... No reason to have two branches, are there? :) Just more work for everyone. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]
> Hmm, still think it's crazy. Maybe that's a missing feature in the > kernel? Somehow I think that'll never see the light of day. > > I looked and my ping is setuid. > > -rwsr-xr-x1 root root15876 Sep 4 2001 /bin/ping* Yep, it may be crazy, but that's how it is... Stops people from hacking into a poorly-protected user account and wreaking all kinds of havoc with raw sockets. :D So that's why ping is always setuid to root... So that it will actually WORK. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: BLFS 6.1 and unzip
> I may be wrong, but make check fails with the current > instructions, worked > when I removed the '&&' like so: > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD make check That makes more sense without the && . :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: libmikmod Test Suite [humor]
> Of course it works ! (-: Haw. :) Now that's cute. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Remove inetutils from LFS [was Re: GCC-4.0.1]
> Yep, and I got a similar problem at work not so long ago! > the BUS ERROR > in that case was caused by free()ing an invalid pointer...no, > I know I'm > not too good at C! I'd imagine it's a similar problem in inetutils. > It's just a matter of tracking it down. I can't remember, > but did you > manage to get a `gdb' backtrace of it? > > Regardless, I think there may well be some merit in getting > iputils to > compile on an LFS setup, given Bruce's argument of a better/more > complete feature set. I may be in a position to do that later today, > but of course, everyone else is more than welcome to give it a go > themselves! Ok guys... You've now forced my hand. ;) Looks like I've gotta do up a GCC-4.0.1 build now, just so I can really get myself into some hot water... :P Also, I *do* know C and how to debug, so I actually (gasp!) might be able to lend a hand rather than just supply some stupid little comments here and there. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC-4.0.1
> I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the > GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that > are really show-stoppers. *CHEER* Love to. :) I've not gone ahead and done a 4.01 install myself, but I thought about it... :) I love the idea, I just haven't the patience with my old PIII-700. :P But I'd love to see the book go that route, for sure, and will do it myself at some point. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
/etc/limits
Hey folks... :) I was just checking the man page for "limits", and saw this: --- The limits file (/etc/limits by default or LIMITS_FILE defined config.h) describes the resource limits you wish to impose. It should be owned by root and readable by root account only. --- However, currently, /etc/limits looks like this: --- $ ls -l /etc/limits -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 725 2005-07-07 14:39 /etc/limits --- Should the permissions on this be changed somewhere to 0600? :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Some improvements to the init.d/functions script
> Is that yes - I'd like to see a nice green '[ OK ]' when I stop an > already stopped process (the way it is now, which _is_ correct by the > exit status)? Or is that yes - I'd like to see a yellow 'Warning: not > running [ WARN ]' when I stop it (which also returns 0 as is > required for LSB)? :-) Hopefully that reads a little better. Yes to WARN. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: New LFS Developer
> Please join me in welcoming Ken Moffat to the LFS development > team. _ _ _ _ | | | |___| |___ ___ _ ___ | | | | -_| | _| . | | -_| |_|___|_|___|___|_|_|_|___| __ _| | | | |___ ___| | |-| -_| |__| |__|__|___|_|_|__| BTW, Figlet rocks. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts [SOLVED]
> I believe you are correct, but I'd have to direct this back to Nathan. > If you want to add it for yourself, it's real easy three > lines in killproc: Could you give some line numbers for that patch? :) Sorry, I'm just not QUITE sure where to put them. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts [SOLVED]
> Not now. 3.2.x went after partial LSB-2.1.0 compliancy to ease the > transition. See below from the spec. Ah, gotcha. :) Makes sense then. :) Thanks so much for your hard work, DJ. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Creating logs of builds (was - Re: Addition to Chapter 12)
> I've become rather fond on the style shown in Bruce's SBU pages: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/about.html > > it neatly gets you: > 1) a log > 2) the time it took recorded in the log > 3) a deeper understanding of how the shell works :-) Nice! :) Thanks! Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts [SOLVED]
> Non-Technical explanation: I actually tested fully (I believe) and it > works!!! :-D Well that looks better. ;) I'm still wondering, though, why: When I have a process not running (spamd in this case), and I do a "spamd stop", it still says, "[ OK ]". :D Shouldn't it say "/usr/bin/spamd is not running." just like "spamd status" would? :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts
> Okay, does the spamd script that you use set PIDFILE?
>
> -- DJ Lucas
Nope... I just copied from some of the other bootscripts... However, I had
the same problems with samba, which I'd done completely according to the
book. Here is what /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamd looks like:
#! /bin/sh
. /etc/sysconfig/rc
. $rc_functions
case "$1" in
start)
boot_mesg "Starting spamd..."
loadproc /usr/bin/spamd -x -u spamd -H /home/spamd -d
--pidfile=/var/run/spamd/spamd.pid
;;
stop)
boot_mesg "Stopping spamd..."
killproc /usr/bin/spamd
;;
reload)
boot_mesg "Reloading spamd..."
reloadproc /usr/bin/spamd
;;
restart)
$0 stop
sleep 1
$0 start
;;
status)
statusproc /usr/bin/spamd
;;
*)
echo "Usage: $0 {start|stop|reload|restart|status}"
exit 1
;;
esac
# End spamd
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts
Ok, without the patch, DJ, I am experiencing a problem, where I try to stop an already stopped process, and it pretends to work. :) However, it really doesn't, of course, since the process isn't actually running. And you already have seen what the patch did to me. :) Dave PS Sorry about the cruft there. :) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Addition to Chapter 12
> Unless you have a reason to use static libraries, I'd just move them > out of the way (after confirming exactly what it installed, > of course). > If you do have a reason to use them, rebuild *binutils* following the > chapter 6 LFS instructions. Ok great. :) Thank you ever so much, Ken. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts
> Well, I didn't have the problem before... However, I am now > experiencing > the following problem after applying your patch: > > /etc# init.d/spamd stop > Stopping spamd... [ FAIL ] > > It was running, and it DID stop it, but reported a failure. > Then I tried starting it again: > > /etc# init.d/spamd start > Starting spamd... > Unable to continue: /usr/bin/spamd is running [ WARN ] > > And it wasn't running. :) I just reversed the patch, btw, and it works fine again. Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts
> And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a > working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2. I've tested it > to the best > of the amount of time availible, but it should be correct. Alexander, > Archaic, Randy and anyone else who has seen the issue, I'd > appreciate if > you all could test and report back. > > Thanks in advance. Well, I didn't have the problem before... However, I am now experiencing the following problem after applying your patch: /etc# init.d/spamd stop Stopping spamd... [ FAIL ] It was running, and it DID stop it, but reported a failure. Then I tried starting it again: /etc# init.d/spamd start Starting spamd... Unable to continue: /usr/bin/spamd is running [ WARN ] And it wasn't running. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: LFS Bootscripts
> And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a > working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2. No patch-o attach-o. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
Hm... I may have been wrong, it said that p was pointing to an invalid address too... I have NO idea why q is invalid, however. Can you do a: -These commands print c ptype c print c->c_name ptype c->c_name ? Thanks. :) (I'm compiling gcc-4.01 right now, but it's being compiled on an PIII-766, so it'll take its time) :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
> Looks like 'q' is the culprit: > > (gdb) print q > $2 = 0x1 Looks like it to me too. :) I'm taking a look right now to see if I can't find the problem. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393 > 393 for (q = name; *q == *p++; q++) > (gdb) bt > #0 0x08051e47 in getcmd (name=0x80598a0 "pwd") at main.c:393 > #1 0x080521b8 in cmdscanner (top=1) at main.c:355 > #2 0x080525ad in main (argc=2, argv=0xbe24) at main.c:233 > > Reproduced here (thanks for the report Randy!) by connecting to > ftp.gnu.org as anonymous then doing a 'pwd'. Thanks Matt. :) Hm... Can you do the following commands and show me the output? (Now you're making me want to build myself a 4.01 build! :P) ---Perform the following--- print q print p print name One of them is probably pointing somewhere it shouldn't, and that's the problem. :) Once I see these, I'll see if there's anything that I can find out. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Inetutils FTP client and GCC4
> Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with > GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4 > branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two > files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can > explain, or care to comment about the following screen output, > I would appreciate it. Can you provide a backtrace from GDB for this? :) I'd be happy to take a look-see. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Libtool installation nit
> Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of > LFS to confirm this? Confirmed here, Randy, and I'm running SVN-20050730. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Bash Docs
> Seeing how the Bash documentation is expansive, it may be nice to have > the HTML files installed, allowing folks to easily print and have > browser search capability. > > What say the group? I think it should be included for sure... :) If you're going to be doing LFS, it probably means you'll be doing shell scripting, etc, and since bash is the default shell for LFS... Good move to include all the docs. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC-4.0.1 patch (no_fixincludes)
> It's rendered on a daily basis at > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/gcc4/ AHA! :) That's what I was looking for! Thanks a ton! Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC-4.0.1 patch (no_fixincludes)
> I find it easiest to check out the SVN sources and render the book > myself. It is easier to stay with a consistent version that way, if > desired. I don't know if it is available on Belgarath and mirrors as > HTML, I didn't check. > > I also plan on being as helpful as possible and sending in patches > to the SVN sources for minor nits. Gotcha. :) Thanks Randy. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC-4.0.1 patch (no_fixincludes)
> -Original Message- > Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:41 PM > Subject: GCC-4.0.1 patch (no_fixincludes) > > Hi all, > > Noted in the list of required patches in the GCC-4 branch is the > gcc-4.0.1-no_fixincludes-1.patch patch. However, this patch does not > seem to be referenced in the text of the book to ever be installed. > > Is this patch required? > > If not, perhaps it should be removed from the list of patches. > > -- > Randy Sorry that I'm a bit off topic... :) Where can I view the GCC-4 branch of the book? I'd be interested in giving some feedback about it! :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: autoconf-2.59 error in lfs-gcc4-20050728
> I get the folowing error doing make in autoconf-2.59 in lfs-gcc4-20050728 Where can a fellow take a look at the gcc4 book? :) I'd be interested in providing some feedback on this! :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass 2
> This is a website issue - will be fixed later today. > > Thanks Whoops! :) Thanks! I'm sorry, I'd sent those to the wrong list. :) As an aside, what ARE the correct URLs? ;) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass 2
> Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11. > GCC-3.4.4 - Pass > 2... > > There's this line: > Results can be compared with those located at > http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/. > > However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different > mirrors. :) You can find this same error in the testing book (TESTING-20050705), with the following URL (for GCC-3.4.3, of course): http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/testing/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass 2
Hey guys, Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass 2... There's this line: Results can be compared with those located at http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/. However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different mirrors. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Chapter 6 and testing...
Hey guys... I'm running through SVN-20050705, and I notice that on 6.14 (GCC 3.4.4), it says to run the tests (make check)... However, in chapter 5, it mentions that you don't HAVE to run the tests in chapter 5, but gives details on the test suite notes... In chapter 6, where the tests are pretty much a necessecity, it tells you to refer back to chapter 5 for the test suite notes... Wouldn't it make more sense to have the test suite notes in chapter 6, with a reference to them from chapter 5 instead? :) Just my two cents, Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: zlib vulnerability
> A possible buffer overflow exploit was discovered in zlib. > -- > Archaic Thanks for the link and the patch, Archaic. :) Much appreciated. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Binutils 2.16.1
> Well, it did up until 07:26 (UTC) today :) I upgraded it > this morning, > it should show up in tomorrows render. *laugh* Perfect. :) Thanks Matt. :) Just thought I'd point that out. ;) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: zlib vulnerability
> We may have to stop the presses. Zlib has a DoS vulnerability. I'm > looking for info now. > > -- > Archaic A new one? Affecting v1.2.2? Where did you read about this? I can't find anything about it! :) Not that I disbelieve you, I just want to read about it myself! :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Binutils 2.16.1
Just wondering... I'm going through the SVN-20050705 book, and I notice that it's still got binutils 2.16 in it... There's 2.16.1 out, and I've successfully compiled it instead of 2.16 (I'm at chapter 6.14 now)... Any reasons that we shouldn't be using 2.16.1? :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Book for 6.1-pre1: a few miscellaneous nits
> And if push comes to shove, I assume Canadian usage will be the > preferred model ;) Yay! :) BTW, Happy Canada Day to those Canadians on here. ;) (Sure I'm about 5 days late saying it on here, but I had a HECK of a good time on the first!) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: [RFC] New LFS Website
> What do you think would make it look "polished"? > > -- > JH Hmm... :) I think, really, that the logo on the "old" site, with the soft drop-shadows and the way the menu highlights give it the look... :) I think that the menu highlights just need a little "3d'ing" to give them that edge. :) *shrug* Perhaps I'm just used to the old one, but I do like the look of it. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: [RFC] New LFS Website
> Please visit this new proposed site (follow the link below) > and reply to > the website mailing list with your thoughts or comments. We > would like > to hear from the community as to whether they would like to > see this new > design implemented. > > http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/ > Well, if my two cents is worth anything... It looks GREAT. :) Not "polished" like the old site, but the layout is certainly more intuitive and easier to follow! Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Hello and such :)
> NOOO :) Those things are pitifully slow. Not to mention things > have to be done quite differently on mips boxes. Actually, they have Intel/AMD architecture too. ;) And they're pretty inexpensive. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Hello and such :)
> Ah, so then we need to put out a call for a decent 1U server, eh? > Anyone? > > /me goes looking on ebay. I've found some Cobalt RAQs that have been pretty cheap on eBay. :) Might wanna take a look for 'em. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: /etc/inputrc textual suggestion
> The inputrc page located at: > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/chapter07/inp > utrc.html > > is currently loaded with much more text than is needed, IMO, and is > rather convoluted, too. Likewise, it refers to an /etc/skel directory > which LFS does not create (nor does it create any regular users). I am > suggesting the following text to replace it: > > ### > > FIXME: startup or start-up? > > FIXME: The following comment needs rewritten > > # Make sure we don't output everything on the 1 line > set horizontal-scroll-mode Off > > Suggested: > > # Allow the command prompt to wrap to the next line > set horizontal-scroll-mode Off 1. I agree with that text change... Much easier for those less "in the know", and most people won't use the /etc/skel stuff anyhoo... 2. start-up 3. Your suggested comment is good. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Section 7.9 - The Bash shell startup files
> Issue 1: > > the following text sounds odd to me: > > ### > For more information, see info bash - Nodes: Bash Startup Files and > Interactive Shells. > ### > Issue 3: > > such locales are not supported by LFS in any way. > > suggested: > > such locales are not yet supported by LFS. Issue 1: I like it the way it is. ;) Issue 2: ? Issue 3: Sounds good. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: error logs
> Seeking feedback regarding fixing a link in the book. > > http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1564 > > -- > Archaic Yeah, I'd definitely take down the current wiki and go for a new one... As was already said, the current one is... Lacking. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: GCC Testsuite
> 3.4.4 as well? > > -- > Archaic Yes, I just untarred gcc-3.4.4.tar.bz2, and it contains the full testsuite. Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: module-init-tools error
Just rebuilt module-init-tools 3.1, and did a "touch modprobe.conf.5" right after I unpacked it. Problem solved. :) Thanks again! Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: module-init-tools error
> Apparently the DOCBOOKTOMAN="" doesn't work because it is trying to > execute: > > docbook2man doc/modprobe.conf.sgml > > By making it "" we get this: > > if [ "" = "docbook2man" ]; then \ > doc/modprobe.conf.sgml > /dev/null 2>&1; \ > else \ > doc/modprobe.conf.sgml 2>&1 > modprobe.conf.5 | sed > 's/^[^:]*://'; \ > fi > doc/modprobe.conf.sgml: Permission denied > > IOW, it is trying to now execute the sgml file. > > For those that log their builds, I'd like to see if you are > getting this > error as well. One easy way is to man modprobe.conf. It > should be hosed. Yeah, I got that error for sure. I just built a few nights ago, and sure enough, that's what I got. It didn't seem to affect anything (from what I knew then!) so I just installed the package anyhow... But now I see what went wrong. :) I'll use that touch idea. Thanks! Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Flex compilation issue...
> At this point I have more confidence in your install than mine! If I > rebuild now, the flex bin is the virtually the same as my > build. If I > touch 'scan.l' before make, both scan.c and the flex bin are > significantly larger. > I'm going to change my script to: > touch -t 0303311951 scan.l > make > make install > touch scan.l > make > make install > till someone says different. > > --- > David Jensen Heheheh. :) Now that's something... You, the expert, have more confidence in my build. ;) Yeah, that seemed to work for me before, so no reason why it shouldn't work for everyone else. :D Now if everyone ELSE agrees, we're all on the same page. :P Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Flex compilation issue...
> If the untar'd dir were copied with 'cp' rather than 'cp -a', the > timestamps would be all wrong. That would force the flex attempt. > > --- > David Jensen I don't copy anything... I work in the /working directory and simply do a "tar zxvf /sources/blah.tar.gz" or whatever... No other modifications, I just follow the book. :D Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Flex compilation issue...
> -Original Message- > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:36 PM > Subject: Re: Flex compilation issue... > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:33:58PM -0600, Archaic wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:22:46PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > > > > If Flex is required to build itself, then it probably should be > > > put back into the book in Chapter 5. I'm cc'ing the -dev list with > > > this message, so the dev guys can determine if it really needs to > > > be added back. > > > > I'm going to run a trunk build tonight with flex removed > and see what > > happens. This is a known solid host so any error should denote a > > problem. > > Flex does not seem necessary. But just to make sure, I will layout my > differences. First, I haven't updated my scripts to fsf > binutils so I am > still building flex, m4, and bison in chapter5. After the binutils > installation in chapter6 I rm'd all flex libs and bins and flex built > fine. 38 tests passed, 0 failed. > > According to the OP's error, a .l file was modified. > > /bin/sh /working/flex-2.5.31/missing --run flex scan.l > /working/flex-2.5.31/missing: line 46: flex: command not found > > First, I find no occurence of 'run flex' in my logs, and second where > did /working come from? > > -- > Archaic > > Want control, education, and security from your operating system? > Hardened Linux From Scratch > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs > > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > > Well, you won't find that "run flex" in your logs unless something "bad" happens. :) As it did with me... Secondly, /working is where I unpack everything to work in (I still keep sources in the /sources directory). I just untar everything in /working, I find it keeps things a lot neater and easier to find. :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: Flex compilation issue...
Sorry, I'd thought this was part of the development version, since I was using the SVN version. :) No problem, I'll post it there. Dave -Original Message- Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: Flex compilation issue... On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:04:51PM -0000, David Fix wrote: > > Any thoughts, anyone? :) Post this to lfs-support, please. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Flex compilation issue...
Hey guys, I've been working through the book (SVN-20050524), and I'm at 6.29. Flex-2.5.31... However, I get the following when I attempt to compile (some parts compile, then it gets to this): if gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" -I/usr/include -I./intl -g -O2 -MT parse.o -MD -MP -MF ".deps/parse.Tpo" -c -o parse.o parse.c; \ then mv -f ".deps/parse.Tpo" ".deps/parse.Po"; else rm -f ".deps/parse.Tpo"; exit 1; fi /bin/sh /working/flex-2.5.31/missing --run flex scan.l /working/flex-2.5.31/missing: line 46: flex: command not found WARNING: `flex' is missing on your system. You should only need it if you modified a `.l' file. You may need the `Flex' package in order for those modifications to take effect. You can get `Flex' from any GNU archive site. sed '/^#/ s|\.c|scan.c|' .c >scan.c sed: can't read .c: No such file or directory make[2]: *** [scan.c] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/working/flex-2.5.31' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/working/flex-2.5.31' make: *** [all] Error 2 Any thoughts, anyone? :) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
