Missing patch
Hi, The linux-2.6.16.11-utf8_input-1.patch patch is missing on the patches repo. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: New server details
El Sábado, 29 de Abril de 2006 18:40, Gerard Beekmans escribió: > Intel Pentium D @ 3.0 GHz > 2 GB RAM > Dual 160 GB SATA hard drives A very nice beast ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Measuring disk usage and build time.
El Martes, 25 de Abril de 2006 19:01, M.Canales.es escribió: > I'm now making a script that will do report with the SBUs and disk space > calculations from jhalfs build logs. > > When ready, anyone using jhalfs to build the book could to submit us that > report and we could to use it to update the book with average values. The script is finished. The generated report will look like the attached one. I will now to add it to jhalfs to generate the report by default (if bc is installed on the host, of course) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org SVN-20060422-SBU_DU-2006-04-25.report.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Measuring disk usage and build time.
El Martes, 25 de Abril de 2006 01:49, Bryan Kadzban escribió: > So you're right: not drastic, and not many packages. I don't know how > widespread the differences here are; I'd chalk most of it up to just not > having updated the SBU numbers since 6.1.1. I'm now making a script that will do report with the SBUs and disk space calculations from jhalfs build logs. When ready, anyone using jhalfs to build the book could to submit us that report and we could to use it to update the book with average values. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Measuring disk usage and build time.
El Lunes, 24 de Abril de 2006 22:25, Randy McMurchy escribió: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Logs/LFS_Tools/gcc-4.0.2-Pass1 > cat sbu.time > > 8.64 SBU > And on my doggy 500mhz P3, just recently built (20060322): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Logs/LFS_Tools/gcc-4.0.3-Pass1 > cat sbu.time > 9.38 SBU Thus, should we to mention also in abuotsbus.xml the specifications of the machine from where times was measured? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Measuring disk usage and build time.
El Lunes, 24 de Abril de 2006 22:10, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> > unpack additional packages (like libidn, bash-doc or vim-languages)
>
> To me, this skews things badly. We've never ever counted unpacking
> source tarballs before.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sources$ time { tar -xjf glibc-libidn-2.3.6.tar.bz2 ; }
real0m0.071s
user0m0.057s
sys 0m0.014s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sources$ time { tar -xjf bash-doc-3.1.tar.bz2 ; }
real0m0.791s
user0m0.711s
sys 0m0.048s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sources$ time { tar -xjf vim-6.4-lang.tar.bz2 ; }
real0m0.465s
user0m0.405s
sys 0m0.042s
Not so badly. From your other post I think that the hardware used to do the
builds has a bigger impact in the final values than the unpack of that small
packages ;-)
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: Measuring disk usage and build time.
El Lunes, 24 de Abril de 2006 22:03, Dan Nicholson escribió: > > > > Approximate build time: 8 SBU > > I get 9.2 SBU for gcc-pass1. I didn't measure disk usage with those. Well, my time values can be smallest than yours due that I'm using an HiperThreading enabled Intel CPU. What I can't undestart is that the book SBU values are smallest that mine :-? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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
Measuring disk usage and build time.
Hi
I made some changes to jhalfs to do more accurate disk usage and build time
measurements. Due that into the editor's guide there is no mention (yet)
about how to do that measurements, I implemented the next approach:
Disk usage is made in to steeps, a first "du -skx $LFS" before to unpack the
package, and a second "du -skx $LFS" before to delete the sources and build
dirs (excluding in both cases the jhalfs dir to not measure build log files).
Build time is measured enclosing each script run inside time {} commands. The
time used to unpack the tarball, to remove the sources and build dirs, and to
run both du commands aren't measured. But the time needed to apply patches,
unpack additional packages (like libidn, bash-doc or vim-languages) or other
extra commands placed inside the book instructions (like creating
configuration files) are measured.
Generated logs look like this (with comments):
Start 028-binutils-pass1 log -
Sun Apr 23 16:44:37 CEST 2006 <-- time stamp before unpack
KB: 214480 /mnt/build_dir <-- disk usage before unpack
.. build commands output
real 2m22.411s <-- build time
user 1m45.668s
sys 0m27.766s
KB: 398016 /mnt/build_dir <-- disk usage before remove build dir
-- End of log --
That should to work. But comparing the values obtained from my last jhalfs
build with the current ones in the book, the differences are abismal in some
cases. For example, for GCC-pass1 in the book we have:
Approximate build time: 4.4 SBU
Required disk space: 219 MB
The values from jhalfs logs are:
Approximate build time: 8 SBU
Required disk space: 513 MB
(After sources and build dir removal, the space used is 21.3 MB)
There is something wrong in how I'm doing the measuremetns in jhalfs?, or are
the current values in the book actualy wrong?
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: Patch - fix patches alpha order
El Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 06:26, Justin R. Knierim escribió: > Hi guys, > > After manually reviewing packages and patches, these out-of-order > patches have always bugged me, so here is a patch. Applies to LFS > trunk, moves inetutils patches before kbd, alpha orders tar security and > sparce patches. Applied, thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Appendix C - Comments
El Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 01:14, Gerard Beekmans escribió: > If I refused it, I don't remember doing so. Was near the same days that we was fixing the PDF look for the LFS-6.1 printed book. But I can't remember the reasons to reject it then. > The only thing I would object to is to combined all appendices into one > single appendix when it is rendered. That was suggested also as a posibility to solve some look issues that we was having. Maybe bost propossals was messed and both refused in a block. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Appendix C - Comments
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 23:48, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > 2. The package names seem pretty large. Perhaps changing to > renderas="sect3" would be better. Alternatively a change to the font > size may only need to be a css change. See if look better now. > 3. Housekeeping: Why is there subdirectories appendixa, appendixb, and > appendixc with only one file in each? Why not create an appendicies > directory and move all three files there. Well, I tried to do that several months ago but Gerard refused 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.com 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: 2.6.2 kernel requirement invalid?
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 13:01, Bryan Kadzban escribió: > 2.6 may not be required for udev, but it is still (AFAIK) required for > NPTL to build. (Well, TLS in binutils, but without that, glibc won't > build NPTL either.) > > So the reason may not be valid, but the requirement is, at least mostly. > I believe NPTL requires just a v2.6 kernel, not 2.6.2 or higher. Fixed. Thanks to all for the comments. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Appendix C - Comments
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 22:30, Chris Staub escribió: > It wouldn't really be accurate to label Expect as a build-time > dependency of anything, because it isn't. It is needed, but only at > runtime, when DejaGNU runs it. Thus Expect is a testsuite run-time dependency like DejaGNU. The issue that I see is that if Expect in not listed as a dependency for any package the readers could to ask wy are we installing Expect in /tools if look like it is not used for other packages. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Appendix C - Comments
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 04:46, Chris Staub escribió: > I like that new Appendix - great way to list all the dependencies. I've > attached a patch with some dependency (and text) corrections, as well as > a couple of packages that were left out entirely. Also, I have some > additional comments... Thanks. > 1. Any instance of "DejaGNU and Expect" for testsuites can probably be > changed to just "DejaGNU" since Expect is run by DejaGNU. Not sure. If done, we will have Expect no listed as a dependency for any package thus, how could we to justify their installation? > 2. For packages without a testsuite, I think it would be more accurate > to label their testsuite deps. as "N/A" rather than "None". Agree. I will add that to your patch and do the commit soon. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Reinstalling Readline
El Domingo, 16 de Abril de 2006 14:20, William Zhou escribió: > > execute "make moveold" before "make install" does the job. Thanks. I will try that in the next jhalfs test that will start in few minutes. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Reinstalling Readline
El Domingo, 16 de Abril de 2006 01:08, M.Canales.es escribió: A similar issue when reinstalling Module-Init-Tools. http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1771 -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Reinstalling Readline
El Domingo, 16 de Abril de 2006 05:49, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Can someone make a ticket out of this so it doesn't get forgotten? I'm > going to bed now, but I wanted to say this before I forgot myself. Done: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1770 -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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
Reinstalling Readline
Hi,
Doing several LFS builds to test the ICA/farce support in jhalfs, I noticed
that when reinstalling Readline the
existent /lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5.1 libraries are renamed
to /lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5.1.old AND the
symliks /lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5 are changed to to point to
that /lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5.1.old libreries instead to point to the
newly installed /lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5.1 ones.
That meant that the symlinks /usr/lib/lib{history,readline}.so that we create
ponting to ../../lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5 in fact will point also to
that "old" libraries.
I that can be confirmed by others folks, I think that we should to add a
similar note to the current one for Bzip2 saying that if reinstalling
Readline a "rm -f /lib/lib{history,readline}.so.5*" must be performed before
"make install"
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: Build order rationale page
El Sábado, 15 de Abril de 2006 17:42, Archaic escribió: > I think it should be reverted. Seems kinda silly to have an identical > link in every package when we can just make a note in the intro > material. Agreed. Adding a good note in chapter06/introduction.xml will make that links redundant. > Also, a couple people have commented that special notes should be in > special note boxes in the affected package page and not in the Appendix. > The note about being non-root is the only example thus far. Well, the POC is about XML/CSS code. The actual text and where each comment should be placed is for technical editors ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Build order rationale page
El Sábado, 15 de Abril de 2006 05:50, Chris Staub escribió: > Yeah, I also agree it would be good to eliminate that stuff from the > package installation page, and just put it all in one place. The > dependency info is useful and important, but it just isn't needed at the > time a package is being built. Attached a new POC patch with: - Simplified the appendixc/dependencies.xml tagging, but keeping the same look that in the previous one. - In chapter06 packages files, replaced dependencies list by a link to Appendix C. If that isn't wanted, then the changes to stylesheets/xhtml/lfs-xref.xsl should be reverted. - In chapter05 packages files, the dependencies list should be removed or changed by links to Appendix C. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org dependencies-2.patch.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Build order rationale page
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 17:05, Archaic escribió:
> Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
> effort. Why should the individual packages list their deps when the
> exact same info is in the Appendix?
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the special tagging in Appendix C required to can point the
package filies XIncludes to the proper place inside Appendix C isn't needed.
We could take away of that {formalpara}s and emty {para}s.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: Build order rationale page
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 16:14, Dan Nicholson escribió: > Fine work as usual, Chris. Anyway, I think the appendix looks great, > and I'd prefer to have the deps pulled from the individual pages. > With the info just in the appendix, you can flesh it out to useful > lengths. What's on the pages now doesn't add much. If decided that dependencies info will be removed from packages files and placed only into that new appendix, then the XML tagging for that appendix can be simplified a lot, or to change it to use a diferent type of list, or to use table format or elsewhere. Say to me if you need a new Appendix C template. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Typography Convertions
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 07:06, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > > OK, here it is. I also updated the chapter07/hosts.xml file as > discussed earlier. Applied, many thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Build order rationale page
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 07:58, Chris Staub escribió: > I agree there, although I think that is only in the deps. page because > Manuel, in creating the patch, was simply copying-and-pasting my > comments about dependencies I had made in the ticket. Those notes > certainly should go into the installation pages. Right. Remember that the patch is only a POC. All can be modified if needed. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: udev_update merge
El Jueves, 13 de Abril de 2006 20:47, Archaic escribió: > The rendered book can be found at: > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-20060413/ Good. I hope to can do some builds with jhalfs+ICA/farce this weekend :-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Build order rationale page
El Martes, 11 de Abril de 2006 16:55, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need > or want to read it. But we should definitely point to it within the main > text. Have a paragraph somewhere that stresses the importance of the > build order and the need to satisfy dependencies, then 'For more > details, see Appendix C' or something of the sort. Attached new POC patch with the dependencies file as Appendix C. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org dependencies.patch.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Build order rationale page
El Martes, 11 de Abril de 2006 16:55, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > > 1) Manuel can you re-send that email? I can't seem to find it right now. > I might have deleted it accidentally... :/ Searching it ... > 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need > or want to read it. But we should definitely point to it within the main > text. Have a paragraph somewhere that stresses the importance of the > build order and the need to satisfy dependencies, then 'For more > details, see Appendix C' or something of the sort. My first try was an Appendix C, but wasn't able to create a decent output look. Well, I will try again using a different tagging and XSL/CSS code. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: [alpha + udev_update] ICA Results In
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 21:22, Dan Nicholson escribió: > I'll make another run later. I'm doing a run with all the testsuites. > In automake right now. I'll be crossing my fingers that this won't > be a problem. I will start a new build now also. iteration-1 now run until the end, but with all that bombs and bad copied system I can't be confident on the current build. I will see tomorrow if the do_ica_work and farce scripts do their work or bomb also... -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: [alpha + udev_update] ICA Results In
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 21:12, Dan Nicholson escribió: > Yeah, that fixed it. I should report that one back to the author. :-) > Are you getting differences in the headers? Not full test yet. I'm fixing the bugs as they bombs the Makefile run ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: [alpha + udev_update] ICA Results In
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 20:39, M.Canales.es escribió:
> Please Dan, can you corfirm if the next file, for example, is into your
> copied trees for iteration analisys?
>
> ../usr/include/sys/procfs.h
>
> I think that do_ica_files is skipping the full /usr/include/sys tree, and
> maybe others files that match $PRUNEPATH pattners.
>
> That will meant not proper iteration analisys until fix the code.
Look like I have that fixed for jhalfs changing the /tmp/prunelist creation to
this:
for F in $1 ; do
echo .${F} >> $TMP_FILE
done
Note the dot before ${F}
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: [alpha + udev_update] ICA Results In
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 15:33, Dan Nicholson escribió: > The ICA run finished up on the merged alphabetical/udev_update branch. > Results were as clean as always. Results can be found in the farce > and ica directories here: Please Dan, can you corfirm if the next file, for example, is into your copied trees for iteration analisys? ../usr/include/sys/procfs.h I think that do_ica_files is skipping the full /usr/include/sys tree, and maybe others files that match $PRUNEPATH pattners. That will meant not proper iteration analisys until fix the code. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Typography Convertions
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 07:06, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> OK, here it is. I also updated the chapter07/hosts.xml file as
> discussed earlier.
>
Many thanks.
I will apply it after Jeremy and Archiac do the udev_update merge.
At the same time I will fix the images issue in the {C,H}LFS Makefiles and to
remove the link creation in BLFS instructions.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: merging udev_update branch
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 23:20, Randy McMurchy escribió: > I'm not sure how much was changed, but it seems at a minimum the > hotplug startup script should be removed. However, I'm sort of like > you Jeremy, not up to speed with this branch, but it seems the > bootscript version *must* be updated. Right. IMHO DJ should to release the "udev_update-20060321" version as "20060410" or similar before to do the merge. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging udev_update branch
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 22:54, M.Canales.es escribió: > > First things noticed. In general.ent "generic-version" and > "lfs-bootscripts-version" need to be fixed. Whit the lfs-bootscripts-version fix, the changelog entry for "March 22, 2006" should be updated. Remember to "svn add chapter05/changingowner.xml" No more issues found at first glance. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging udev_update branch
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 22:36, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > All in all, I don't think it's going to be much of a problem. I merged > udev_update into my working copy, rendered and created a diff. I would > appreciate it if a few eyes could take a look and let me know if I've > missed anything, especially since some of you are much more familiar > with the uu branch than I am. I think it's still wise to wait until > we've had a test-build or two on it before merging, but hopefully that's > not too far away. First things noticed. In general.ent "generic-version" and "lfs-bootscripts-version" need to be fixed. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Rendering LFS books
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 18:40, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > In BLFS, we created an image/ directory and have the images in SVN. > That seems like a better way to me. That way the entire book is in SVN > and is not dependent on any external sources. If it matters, the files > are 136K. I have also that images/ directory in the LFS Spanish translation repository from many time ago. It's my preferred method due that it allow to have cunstomized images if dessired. > We will remove the symlink from the DocBook XSL Stylesheets installation > as soon as the LFS Makefile is changed to remove the dependency. I'm waiting comments from others LFS editors about what to do... -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Typography Convertions
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 10:09, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > Overall, this post is about a detail. Perhaps the proposed changes are > not worth the effort, but I would like to see them implemented. > > Discussion? A patch will be very welcome ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Rendering LFS books
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 02:44, Randy McMurchy escribió: > Is there any way we can change and move to a versioned directory > target, so folks a year from now will know which version of stylesheets > they'll need? Facts: -The xsl-stylesheets-current symlink is used only to copy the images. -The actual DoocBook-XSL required version is hardcoded inside the LFS stylesheets -To can render the book, the user need must be installed the required DocBook-XSL version -To create custom XSL that depend on a "current" version is a bad habit and never should to happen. -In the Makefile the xsl-stylesheets-current was added as a convenience symlink to avoid to edit the Makefile each time a new DocBook-XSL version is released, that was something frequent at that times. -Is most likely that there will be no more new DocBook-XSL versions for DocBook-xml-4.x (except if DocBook-XML-4.5 is released some day) due that all the upstream work is centered in the new XSL-2.0-based stylesheets for DocBook-5, that is RelaxNG+Schematron based. Then, I agree with you and that xsl-stylesheets-current symlink should be removed at all, both in the book's Makefile and in the BLFS instructions for DocBook-XSL. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Sábado, 8 de Abril de 2006 18:54, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Well, if we're changing that page from just Essential Symlinks to > Essential Symlinks and Files, then we might as well merge that page with > 6.7 because, in my mind, 6.7 as it is really could be renamed to > 'Creating Essential Files'. Right, that is a possibility to be discussed. But for now the issue is to create /etc/mtab somewhere to solve a bug in the book, then i let you to decide where to place 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.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Sábado, 8 de Abril de 2006 18:24, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > My reasoning is that 1) /etc/mtab isn't really anything to do with the > other kernfs mounts, 2) we already create /etc in 6.5 "Creating > Directories" and that fits there - there's no real need to create /etc > any earlier 3) by section 6.7 we still haven't begun building anything > or using the system in such a way that anything should require > /etc/mtab, so it should be safe, and 4) 6.7 as it is currently is really > just a pool of other files that need to be created that we haven't done > yet, so /etc/mtab fits better there, IMHO. In that case I would suggest 6.6 Creating Essential Symlinks (and files). I think that could fit better here. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 22:27, Dan Nicholson escribió: > Yes, I get the failures without /etc/mtab. That's the issue. Due that in udev_update no mounts are done inside the chroot, /etc/mtab isn't created. I think that we should to add the "touch /etc/mtab" in chapter06/e2fsprogs.xml just before the "make check" command. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 22:08, M.Canales.es escribió: > After the removal of /etc/mtab, the test failures are here againg. More news: A plain "touch $LFS/etc/mtab" allow to pass successfully all e2fsprogs test. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 22:07, Dan Nicholson escribió: > I just built e2fsprogs in chroot using mount --bind and no other > modifications except that it's building on top of a full system. No > test failures: Do you have an $LFS/etc/mtab file? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 21:43, Archaic escribió: > However, for size recording, my script does one thing in chroot to make > / appear in /etc/mtab: > > mount -f -t $fs_type /dev/$partition / > > Maybe that's why it works for me? Bingo! When I made the umount of /dev and remount all kernel filesystems like in trunk, an /etc/mtab file was created. No more test failed then using both the old method and the --bind method. After the removal of /etc/mtab, the test failures are here againg. I noticed now that there is another mount changes in the udev_update branch. In udev_update, as root from the host: mount -vt devpts devpts $LFS/dev/pts mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/dev/shm In trunk, first as root on the host: mount -vft tmpfs tmpfs $LFS/dev/shm mount -vft devpts -o gid=4,mode=620 devpts $LFS/dev/pts Latter, into the chroot: mount -vt devpts -o gid=4,mode=620 none /dev/pts mount -vt tmpfs none /dev/shm -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: udev branch. package udev.
El Miércoles, 5 de Abril de 2006 14:57, William Zhou escribió: > BTW, in the section Important, the last sentence got a word misspelled. > It is "to aid" not "to aide". Fixed, thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 21:05, Bryan Kadzban escribió: > The rest of the function is a bit hairy though. Probably the best way > to figure out what exactly it's complaining about is to set the DEBUG > preprocessor define to something other than zero; this should be doable > if you cd into lib/ext2fs and run "make tst_ismounted", then > loopback-mount any file, and run "./tst_ismounted /path/to/that/file". > > With /dev not-bind-mounted, the ./tst_ismounted should succeed. With > /dev bind-mounted, the program should fail, and hopefully it'll provide > more info on the failure mode as well. Well, all that is beyond my capabilities. Real developers should to try to solve this issue. What I know is that all that is due the "mount --bind" change and has no relation with the merge of alphabetical stuff into the udev_update branch, the doing the commit now. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 20:36, Bryan Kadzban escribió: > Any idea which tests succeeded / failed? e_icount_normal: inode counting abstraction optimized for storing inode counts: ok e_icount_opt: inode counting abstraction optimized for counting: ok > What happens if you build with the non-bind-mounted /dev tree, but then > test with a bind-mounted /dev tree? (I.e., make a copy of the "81 tests > succeeded" tree, bind-mount /dev, and rerun its testsuite.) 81 tests succeeded 0 tests failed But I'm not sure if the entorn is realy clean. > How is your source /dev directory (the source for the bind-mount, that > is) set up -- is it static, or udev? (Or devfs?) Is populated like is done for LFS-6.0, i.e., using Udev-030. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 20:20, M.Canales.es escribió: > I have keeped both build trees, if you need some info from them. Diffing the build trees all dfferences are in the build/test/* files. All files on that drectory for the "mount -bind" build have ths additional line: + ext2fs_check_if_mount: No such file or directory while determining whether ./test.img is mounted. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 20:06, Dan Nicholson escribió: > On 4/7/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have yet all the kernel filesystems mounted. I will do now a new > > E2fsprogs build ith mount -bind. After that i will to umount /dev and > > mount it again like is done in trunk to do another E2fsprogs rebuild. > > Great. Sounds like a good plan. Confirmed :-/ Using mount -bind: 2 tests succeeded 79 tests failed Using the old method to populate $LFS/dev: 81 tests succeeded 0 tests failed The build logs don't show differences beyond "ok" or "failed" for each test. I have keeped both build trees, if you need some info from them. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 19:51, Dan Nicholson escribió: > > Unfortunately, there's not a lot of info there. Do you still have the > source directory? How about, now that the base system is installed, > try to rebuild e2fsprogs and see if the tests still fail. I have yet all the kernel filesystems mounted. I will do now a new E2fsprogs build ith mount -bind. After that i will to umount /dev and mount it again like is done in trunk to do another E2fsprogs rebuild. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 19:26, Dan Nicholson escribió: > Out of curiosity, what kind of hardware do you have? I've been > getting three error here using an Athlon-XP for a while now. I like > to think these are processor specific, but I haven't really > investigated. An Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz HiperThreading. The base system is yet an LFS-6.0 with very few updates. > This may have to do with mount --bind. I can't think of any other > reasons for it. Definitely needs investigation. Could you post > anything that sticks out about these failures? Attached the full E2fsprogs build log. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org 088-e2fsprogs.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 22:37, Archaic escribió: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:27:23PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote: > > The build will take some hours on my system, then the commit will be made > > tomorrow if there is no build issues. > > Sounds good, Manuel. Thanks for all the help! :) Build finished. It is one or the more cleanest builds I never has :-) In chapter 06 Glibc test suite I have only this error: make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) Chapter 06 GCC test suite summary: === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 35544 # of unexpected successes 3 # of expected failures 92 # of untested testcases 28 # of unsupported tests 326 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.0.3 === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 11463 # of unexpected successes 1 # of expected failures 69 # of unsupported tests 56 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/../g++ version 4.0.3 === libstdc++ Summary === # of expected passes 3713 # of unexpected successes 2 # of expected failures 12 === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes 1282 # of unexpected failures 6 But I find this one for the E2fsprogs test suite: 2 tests succeeded 79 tests failed I don't know if that is normal, never revised build logs with full test suites until now. Maybe that is due that we are into a chroot jail? If that look sane, I will do the commit in few hours. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Build order rationale page
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 17:38, Chris Staub escribió: > I've started working on a page describing the reasoning behind the > package build order for LFS. Take a look at it here - > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/lfs-book/chapter05/buildorder.html. > Any comments - page layout, location, etc., are welcome. I don't have > much actual information there yet, but it should be enough to give an > idea of what it would look like. Some days ago I send to Jeremy a patch with XML templates to describe all that stuff and to add in each package file the testsuite dependencies. Maybe both you should to work on that together ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 22:16, Archaic escribió: > > You sure are in a hurry today Manuel. :) Have you actually built a > system according to the proposed changes? I would suggest a run of > jhalfs on your local copy before committing. I'm downloading now the last updated packages. The build will take some hours on my system, then the commit will be made tomorrow if there is no build issues. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 21:00, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Yes, I see what you were thinking. I misunderstood your intentions > before. Well, if it makes it easier to merge udev_update back to trunk, > then I'd say go for it. OK. I will do the commit in a hour if there is no objections from others folks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 20:31, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Oh. I thought you were doing it the other way. Since alpha is in trunk > now, I you were going to merge all the changes to the udev_branch since > it split from trunk back to trunk. This agrees with the method in the > subversion docs: In the subversion docs they say also that all changes made to trunk should be ported to the branches when applicable, to keep it synchronized and to avoid future conflicts. Are the alphabetical changes suitables for the udev_update branch? Want we to test udev_update+alphatetical before to do the final merge? If yes. we should to do that commit first. If not, we can try to merge udev_update to trunk on their own. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 20:19, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Well, any chance you can attach a diff here first? I'm just curious > about what gets changed... Attached. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org Index: chapter01/changelog.xml === --- chapter01/changelog.xml (revisión: 7491) +++ chapter01/changelog.xml (copia de trabajo) @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ [manuel] - Placed home page (when available) and full download links for all packages in chapter03/packages.xml. + + [jhuntwork] - Merged alphabetical branch to trunk. + @@ -66,11 +69,11 @@ [ken] - Correct my erroneous comment about UTF-8 locales in - Man-DB. Thanks to Alexander for explaining it. + Man-DB. Thanks to Alexander for explaining it. - [ken] - upgraded to Linux-2.6.16.1, Iproute2-2.6.16-060323, - and Udev-088. + [ken] - upgraded to Linux-2.6.16.1, Iproute2-2.6.16-060323, + and Udev-088. @@ -80,8 +83,8 @@ [ken] - Upgrade to shadow-4.0.15 and add convert-mans script - to convert its UTF-8 man pages. Thanks to Alexander and Archaic for - the script and commands. Fixes tickets #1748 and #1750. + to convert its UTF-8 man pages. Thanks to Alexander and Archaic for + the script and commands. Fixes tickets #1748 and #1750. @@ -209,6 +212,10 @@ [archaic] - Create the Udev directories before creating the symlinks. + + [jhuntwork] - Added a description of perl configure flags that + help perl deal with a lack of groff. Thanks Dan Nicholson. + @@ -628,6 +635,16 @@ + December 16, 2005 + + + [jhuntwork]: Move Procps to before Perl in chapter 6. Perl's + testsuite uses 'ps'. + + + + + December 13, 2005 @@ -814,6 +831,13 @@ Many thanks to Alexander Patrakov for highlighting the numerous issues and for reviewing the various suggested fixes. + + [jhuntwork]: Move sed to earlier in the build. + + + [jhuntwork]: Move m4 to earlier in the build. Thanks + Chris Staub. + @@ -828,6 +852,16 @@ + November 10, 2005 + + + [jhuntwork]: Initial re-ordering of packages. Thanks to + Chris Staub (bug 684). + + + + + November 7, 2005 Index: chapter05/chapter05.xml === --- chapter05/chapter05.xml (revisión: 7491) +++ chapter05/chapter05.xml (copia de trabajo) @@ -23,26 +23,24 @@ http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="dejagnu.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="gcc-pass2.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="binutils-pass2.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="gawk.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="coreutils.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="ncurses.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="bash.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="bzip2.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="gzip.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="coreutils.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="diffutils.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="findutils.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="make.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="grep.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="sed.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="gawk.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="gettext.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="ncurses.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="grep.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="gzip.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="m4.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="make.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="patch.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="perl.xml"/> + http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="sed.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="tar.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="texinfo.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="bash.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="m4.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="util-linux.xml"/> - http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="perl.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="stripping.xml"/> http://www.w3.org/2003/XInclude"; href="changingowner.xml"/> Index: chap
Re: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 19:46, M.Canales.es escribió: > El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 19:42, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > > I'm sure Archaic wouldn't mind if you started on seeing what would need > > to happen to merge udev in now (perhaps even create a diff?) I think its > > wise to leave space of a week for testing between merges, though. > > Generating the diff and doing a local merge to track possible conflicts... I have ready the commit to merge the alphabetical branch (i,e, the merge of r7489) to the udev_update branch. Making that commit could allow us to have a cleanest diff against trunk and to do ICA test on the udev_update branch before do the final merge. Do you agree with making I that commit? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Uploading new packages, and the editor's manual
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 19:47, Archaic escribió: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 07:38:53PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote: > > Due that there is no comments against that, I will do the commit now. > > Please wait, or merge the change to udev_update to avoid another set > of conflicts when that branch merges. Don't worry, I have ready the equivalent changes for udev_update. That will be my next commit. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 19:42, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > I'm sure Archaic wouldn't mind if you started on seeing what would need > to happen to merge udev in now (perhaps even create a diff?) I think its > wise to leave space of a week for testing between merges, though. Generating the diff and doing a local merge to track possible conflicts... -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Uploading new packages, and the editor's manual
El Domingo, 2 de Abril de 2006 10:40, M.Canales.es escribió: > I would prefer to have both, the real home site links (not the current > ones) and the full packages download links. > > I will start making the required changes on my local copy waiting > agreements (or lack of complaints) before to do the commit. Due that there is no comments against that, I will do the commit now. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Jueves, 6 de Abril de 2006 19:28, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > I'm merging alpha as we speak. Archaic and I have planned to do > udev_update next week, if no objections are made. No objections in my end ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: merging and consolidating
El Martes, 4 de Abril de 2006 20:30, Archaic escribió: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:25:22PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote: > > Why not merge alpha into udev_branch, then just replace svn with > > udev_branch? > > It doesn't gain us anything, plus it keeps us from being able to revert > either of the 2 unique changes in trunk itself (which is where reverting > would take place). I have tracked all diffs from trunk to both alphabetical and udev_update branches. The merge will be not traumatic. I can to merge both now if you like (and if I no lost my ADSL connexion again) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Uploading new packages, and the editor's manual
El Sábado, 1 de Abril de 2006 00:50, Ag Hatzim escribió: > By the way. > There was a discussion about 2 months ago [1],with the conclusion that we > can link directly to the package tarballs. I would prefer to have both, the real home site links (not the current ones) and the full packages download links. I will start making the required changes on my local copy waiting agreements (or lack of complaints) before to do the commit. > The attached patch is exactly the same that Dimitry Naldayev provided [2], > modified to match current svn. > > 1. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-January/055306.html > 2. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-March/056201.html Thanks for the patch :-) Pd: Look like there are problems with the lfs-book list. When trying to see http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book/ I got: Bug in Mailman version 2.1.2 We're sorry, we hit a bug! If you would like to help us identify the problem, please email a copy of this page to the webmaster for this site with a description of what happened. Thanks! All other list work fine. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Sábado, 25 de Marzo de 2006 22:41, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > To me, it just seems easier to work with dependencies all in one file > rather than separately in each chapter06 file. Especially as we're > looking at including another page (IIRC) that describes more of the > rationale for dependencies and the package order. > > Just throwing out ideas. :) Well, the final decision will be for Matthew. I will create a framework and will send it to you for develop the POC. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Sábado, 25 de Marzo de 2006 20:52, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Manuel, I wanted to start adding this stuff into the book. I was > wondering if it would make sense to have this as some sort of > dynamically available data. I'm not sure if an entity makes sense (e.g., > autoconf-deps) but that's all I can think of at the moment. Do you have > any suggestions? The dependencies for each package are placed in the package file under chapter06/, and Xincluded from here in the files under chapter05/. When the dependencies for a package need be updated, only the file for that package under chapter06/ need be edited. I can't see any gain, from the maintenance point of view, on placing the dependencies for all packages on a separate entities file. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Minor updates for linux-2.6.16 and Udev
El Miércoles, 22 de Marzo de 2006 14:43, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió: > The attached patch does the following: Applied the changes for chapter06/udev.xml I left the others ones to Matthew. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Which book should handle the /dev/cd and /dev/dvd symlinks?
El Martes, 21 de Marzo de 2006 23:31, Matthew Burgess escribió: > The actual devices (/dev/hdc on my box) are created correctly, but the > symlinks are incorrect if one has multiple CD/DVD drives. Therefore, > the bug is rightly an LFS one. Now, with the observation that the > underlying devices (e.g. /dev/hdc) are created correctly I'd propose > that we simply remove the symlink rule from the rules file (lines 3-6) > and close the ticket. If folks want to create symlinks for their CD/DVD > drives there are various examples in the Udev tarball of rules that will > do so. How's that sound? And why not to add the CLFS udev-rules package to the udev_update branch and see if it do their intended work? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Small problem on Acknowledgments page
El Viernes, 17 de Marzo de 2006 18:23, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> It appears that we have a problem with the tidy program to make the html
> pretty. I'll make sure the latest version is being used.
Actually is an issue with the obfuscate.sh script.
Is was created for when all links was rendered in italic, placing {i} HTML
tags around the name. But later in BLFS the XSL code was modified to output
external links in bold, placing {span class="ulink"} around the name.
When tidy indent the line like
{a href="mailto:.."}{span class=
"ulink"}{/span}
obfuscate.sh do well their work. But when tidy indent it like
{a href="mailto:.."}{span class="ulink"}...
..[/span}
obfuscate.sh outputs
{a href="mailto:.. class="ulink"}...
..[/span}
The perl/sed syntax used in obfuscate.sh is very complicated to try to fix it
myself.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New LFS RElease?
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 21:08, Matthew Burgess escribió: > Why does the merge of the alphabetical and udev_update branches mean > that gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4 would be included as well? Would meant that depending on how many time will take to us to do the merges and how behind latest available toolchain version what we to release 6.2. If the merge can be done before 01/04, and the final release around 15/04, that could be fine to me. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 20:58, Archaic escribió: > > Testsuite depends on: additional dependencies to run the testsuites Of course. That is what 'additional' means ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: New LFS RElease?
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 20:36, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > It is time to start considering a new LFS release. > > I see that we are behind on gcc and glibc as gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4 have > been released. > > The kernel is about to release 2.6.16 (they have been on 2.6.16-rc5 for > about two weeks now) so we are quite a bit behind there. I see two possibilities: 1- Release LFS-6.2 using trunk "as is" now. 2- Wait up to can merge both alphabetical and udev_update branchs. That would meant to include also GCC-4.1, Glibc-2.4 and Linux-2.6.16. Thinking on BLFS, I think that 1 could be the best choice. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Alphabetical Build Clean [Was Re: [Alphabetical] Build order, Bug 684, Issue with Bash patch]
El Miércoles, 8 de Marzo de 2006 18:10, Dan Nicholson escribió: > I saw that and started making those same changes in my sandbox. > However, this could become pretty ugly. Perhaps if there was a > separate Optional Dependencies heading. Or Testing Dependencies. Or, > since LFS doesn't include that many packages, we could make a single > page with a table that lists all the deps. I think this was already > suggested before. The most simplest is (at output look level): Approximate build time: 0.2 SBU Required disk space: 16.4 MB Installation depends on: list of build dependencies, like until now Testsuite depends on: additional dependencies to run the testsuites > Just for the case of automake and it's ridiculous test suite > dependency list, some sort of policy needs to be decided on. I'm for listing only LFS packages, adding a note after the offending "make check" commands discussing that some test are skipped due dependencies outside the base system. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: New BLFS Editor
El Lunes, 27 de Febrero de 2006 02:02, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > I would like to announce that Dan Nicholson has been appointed as the > newest BLFS Editor. Please help me in welcoming him to the project. Wow, fresh meat in the team ;-) Welcome on board, Dan. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Changelog unchanged
El Miércoles, 8 de Febrero de 2006 15:18, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Manuel, I wonder if it's best to leave the date alone when making > strictly XML changes. Either that, or start adding Changelog entries for > them. Just so its not confusing to those comparing the Changelog with > the date. Well, the HTML look has few changes due small tags fixes, then the book's snapshots aren't identical, thus the date update. But that changes aren't technical or editorial stuff, thus no changelog entries (except maybe when finished the indentation). Now only ten files need be indented. I can life not updating the date for that files ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: UTF-8
El Viernes, 20 de Enero de 2006 17:34, Jim Gifford escribió: > Talking to community members in cross-lfs, most of them don't want to be > forced to use utf-8, because they don't need it. Others want to be able > to test it, and if they don't like it do a build without it. No one is forcing to use UTF-8 locales, but trying to fix the bugs that prevents to use UTF-8 locales if desired or needed. > As far as Cross-LFS is concerned with utf-8, I would like to hold off > until then. I second that. Don't add the UTF-8 stuff to CLFS until have a well tested and working implementation in LFS. But IMHO UTF-8 support should be considered a basic functionality for LFS (like in any other Linux distro), then +1 for have its support as the default in the build, allowing the switch to/from traditional locales from/to UTF-8 locales via run-time configuration files. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: RFC: Implementing Trac [long]
El Jueves, 19 de Enero de 2006 12:41, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > In my experience only ViewCVS does it this way. Every other different > piece of software I've used shows the file right off. Anyway, I wonder > if there's a way to control this, and I can look into it... Actually I see more logical the way that Trac do that. Click on the file name and you wiil see the current content of that file. Click on the revision number and you will get the revisions history. Simple and intuitive. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Parameter in Makefile
El Martes, 17 de Enero de 2006 12:36, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió: > Filip Bartmann wrote: > >Why is in Makefiles for LFS books parameters "-nonet"? If I don't remove > >this parameters I can't build this books, because I have errors "failed > >to load external entity". Have I something wrong? > > Yes, old version of DocBook XML DTD and stylesheets.. Or a bad configured /etc/xml/catalog file. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: TeX and LFS-BOOK
El Martes, 17 de Enero de 2006 10:14, Filip Bartmann escribió: > How can I make TeX output from LFS book XML sources? I find, that under > directory stylesheet is file lfs-tex.xsl-how can I use this file for > converting from xml to TeX? That stylesheet depend on db2latex (http://db2latex.sourceforge.net/, the most recent versions are in the snapshot/ subdirectory), and work only in part due that I don't know LaTeX syntax. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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
i18n patches.
Hi! Starting the Spanish translation update I noticed that the i18n patches referenced in the book are yet hosted on the Alexander's home dir. For consintency, and to allow patcheslist.xsl and jhalfs do well their job, that patches must be placed into the Patches Project repository, and chapter03/patches.xml be fixed after that. Can someone with commit priviledges on the patches repo do that ASAP? Thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Updates of bash, readline and less
El Lunes, 12 de Diciembre de 2005 13:22, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Well, the correct entity is " But that raises a question. That > entity is only used in a few places in the book and never within a > screen+userinput tags. Is that intentional? When writing a command I would prefer to use the proper characters than entities (except for < and > due their XML meant). It's most clear and readable at source level. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Automating BLFS
El Lunes, 28 de Noviembre de 2005 16:33, Bruce Dubbs escribió: > These are the main alternative packages/options that I can remember off > the top of my head. I'd have to go through the book to get a > comprehensive list, but we are just talking concepts right now. Well, all that seems good proposals to play with in the jhalfs Makefile generation modules for BLFS. But IMHO the first issue is to be able to generate usable scripts for each package and additional pages. Having usable dumped scripts we could rearrange the Makefile on several ways controlled via jhalfs switches or Makefile variables. Then, can I to start adding that tags? Note: After some test I see no need for other XML changes, the remaining issues should can be handled by the XSLT code or the jhalfs modules. Note2: The sect1 ID's attribute values should match the dbhtml PI filename value for dependencies tracking to work. At first glance look that that is already true for most packages. Is some need be fixed, is more easy to change the HTML filename. Note3: Sorry for the earlier non-edited reply :-( -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: User IDs and Group IDs
El Martes, 22 de Noviembre de 2005 20:32, Gerard Beekmans escribió: > If what you said can easily be done--a shared file across all > repositories--then that's how we should go about it. svn:externals have several limitations, see the last two paras in this page: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch07s03.html I would prefer an html page on the web server. And I'm voluntary to update all books to that new set of standard user and group IDs if needed. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: module-init-tools-3.2.1
El Lunes, 21 de Noviembre de 2005 22:22, Matthew Burgess escribió: > 3) Change the Makefile to do the following test instead: > > if [ "$(prefix)" = / -o "$(prefix)" = "" ]; Try this: if [ x$(prefix) = x/ ] That is recommended way to test varaibles when you aren't sure that it allways have an asigned value. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Typo lf-dev SVN-20051118
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:54, Matt Darcy escribió: > However the missing j option for untaring needs updating. My comment is valid also for -j or -z switches ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Typo lf-dev SVN-20051118
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:01, Matt Darcy escribió: > should be > > tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1 > > The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on > platforms. Not. When issuing that command the tar binary used must be the one in /tools/bin, that we know that support the sintax used in the book. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: Users reentering chroot and continuing
El Viernes, 18 de Noviembre de 2005 04:49, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > As far as 1 goes, it's nice to see various people commenting on a much > more visible list. It helps round out the discussion and determine > whether or not this is an important issue to many people. Thinking on that, and after see how we manage it in jhalfs, the current text in the book don't seem to me very accurate and no discuss that /dev must be repopulated also. If the user exit from the chroot, but no halt the system, is enought issuing the chroot command found in "6.3. Entering the Chroot Environment", or the one in "6.62. Cleaning Up" if he is beyond that point, to continue the build. But if the user halt the system, then he need to redo "6.2. Mounting Virtual Kernel File Systems", enter to the chroot issuing the appropiate command, populate /dev using the commands in "6.8.2. Mounting tmpfs and Populating /dev", and if he is beyond "6.58. Udev-071", to run /sbin/udevstart. Maybe to discuss all that on a separete page after "6.8. Populating /dev" plus a note box in "6.58. Udev-071" could be the best solution? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs fixes
El Viernes, 18 de Noviembre de 2005 10:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > In this scenario, jhalfs breaks because: > * Variables JHALFSDIR,LOGDIR,MKFILE are set in jhalfs.conf > related to BUILDDIR, but not reset when BUILDDIR is overwritten > in the command-line. > > * The sed in line 1068 that replaces FAKEDIR with $BOOK uses '/' > so $BOOK cannot contain a path. Many thanks, both are real bugs that need be fixed. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: LFS Book indention
El Viernes, 11 de Noviembre de 2005 19:41, Randy McMurchy escribió: > M.Canales.es wrote these words on 11/11/05 12:30 CST: > I don't remember any discussion about the "alphabetical merge". Is > this something that is deemed so trivial that it isn't worthy of > community discussion before implementation? Not, Is a very old issue ;-) http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684 -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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
LFS Book indention
Hi ! I would to start indenting the LFS-SVN sources this weekend. I hope that it will take only a few days (more of the indented blocks, like the "Contents of ..." sections, can be ported from CLFS, the big work will be to indent the Spanish translation sources :-/ ) But that meant that no automatized "svn merge"s will be allowed to/from any of the current branches and all changes must be ported by hand. Current active branches are: 6.1.1 .- Remain some issue that should be fixed in both trunk and 6.1.1 before 6.1.1 release? alphabetical .- No problem with that due that the possible changes involves only chapter05.xml and chapter06.xml, IMHO. UTF-8 .- Not yet in the official LFS repository (when will be added?), but is the most problematic one. Alexander, if you send to me a patch against current trunk, I will try to create an updated patch against the indented trunk. In resume, can I to start indenting LFS-SVN?, or should to wait until after 6.1.1 release and the alphabetical merge? -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: LFS 6.1.1 Release Date?
El Sábado, 29 de Octubre de 2005 17:38, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Howdy. > > Manuel, you have it buildable via jhalfs, right? Yes. > Have you seen good results with that? Running now a new full build with current jhalfs version to be sure that all is fine. I'm using this command line: # ./jhalfs --timezone Europe/Madrid --page_size A4 -C ../../kernel-config \ --fstab ../../fstab -L 6.1.1 -T -P -M -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Martes, 25 de Octubre de 2005 16:03, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > The idea of keeping the code cleaner by using a function is nice, > however I disagree that this is more readable. At least to me the version using "case" is more hard to read and isn't as flexible as the "_IS_" function. The "_IS_" function can be used in places where "case" don't fit very well. For example, this # If no .config file is supplied, the kernel build is skipped if [ -z $CONFIG ] ; then if echo $script | grep -q "kernel" ; then continue fi fi has been simplified to # If no .config file is supplied, the kernel build is skipped if [ -z $CONFIG ] && [[ `_IS_ $i kernel` ]] ; then continue fi How that would look using "case"? > Plus it appears that it > would just be that much slower because we're using if and case in > tandem, when a case alone would have sufficed. The Makefile creation take less than 5 seconds on a slow machine using any of the jhalfs versions (the old one, the new one, the "case" based one, or the "regexp" based one.). I can't see a perfomance issue on that when the full build process could take several hours. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Lunes, 17 de Octubre de 2005 21:53, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> Seth W. Klein wrote:
> > case $i in *groff)
>
> 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.
The method implemented few minutes ago is based on that, but instead to change
all "if" to "case" a function based in "case" string text has been added and
that function is used inside the "if".
#---#
_IS_() # Function to test build scripts names
#---#
{
# Returns substr $2 or null str
# Must use string testing
case $1 in
*$2*) echo "$2" ;;
*) echo "" ;;
esac
}
if [[ `_IS_ $i adjusting` ]] ; then
IMHO, that is the more cleanest, readable and portable solution.
Many thanks for your inputs, especially to George B. for send to me several
different implementations and solutions, included that.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Lunes, 17 de Octubre de 2005 22:08, M.Canales.es escribió: > after that That should read "after all", my English sucks :-# -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Lunes, 17 de Octubre de 2005 21:53, Jeremy Huntwork escribió: > Seth W. Klein wrote: > > case $i in *groff) > > 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. Look nice and more simple to maintain. Feel free to do any changes you agree with, after that you are the jhalfs creator ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Lunes, 17 de Octubre de 2005 15:06, Dan Nicholson escribió: > I'm sure you knew this, but remember that set -e does not break for > simple errors in while loops. Haven't looked at jhalfs to know if this > is the case or not. Just wanted to give a heads up. Yeah, I read the bash man page before implement the change ;-) set -e is used only in the scripts self-generated from the books commands and, at least for now, there is no loops in the LFS instructions. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: [RFC] LFS-6.1.1
El Viernes, 14 de Octubre de 2005 22:56, Matthew Burgess escribió: > Yeah, I hit the missing patches.ent file today too. As it's a fairly > safe change to do (`make validate' and the rendering process that copies > the patches will catch any inadvertent errors) feel free to backport > patches.ent to the 6.1.1 branch and then add your 'nodump' stuff > wherever you need it. Well, the 6.1.1 branch in now full supported by jhalfs ;-) -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Sábado, 15 de Octubre de 2005 04:54, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió: > 2. Please don't use "&&" between commands. Reason: sometimes there's no > "&&" if the book says to do two commands in one screen/userinput block. > In order to fail reliably on any error without continuing the script, > you can add a "set -e" line just below "#!/bin/sh". This has the same > effect as adding "&&" between all commands. Obviously, "make -k check" > should be replaced with "make -k check || true" then. Done also, thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Sábado, 15 de Octubre de 2005 04:54, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió: > 1. For the UTF-8 book, it is also needed to download > glibc-libidn-2.3.5.tar.bz2 from lfs-matrix. Please handle this similarly > to glibc-linuxthreads and bash-doc tarballs. This and the groff-patchlevel issue should both be fixed now. Can you verify 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.com 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: jhalfs: Ready to go.
El Sábado, 15 de Octubre de 2005 04:54, Alexander E. Patrakov escribió: > Two more feature requests. > > 1. For the UTF-8 book, it is also needed to download > glibc-libidn-2.3.5.tar.bz2 from lfs-matrix. Please handle this similarly > to glibc-linuxthreads and bash-doc tarballs. Working on it. I also will try to can use both tar.bz2 and tar.gz formats without the need to rely on a newer Tar version installed on the host. > 2. Please don't use "&&" between commands. Reason: sometimes there's no > "&&" if the book says to do two commands in one screen/userinput block. > In order to fail reliably on any error without continuing the script, > you can add a "set -e" line just below "#!/bin/sh". This has the same > effect as adding "&&" between all commands. Obviously, "make -k check" > should be replaced with "make -k check || true" then. Good trip. That also will do unneeded the hack for "cat ... EOF" blocks. Many thanks. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com 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
