Re: Cracklib setup

Bruce Dubbs wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: Please, if you have a couple of seconds, try to navigate to the following URL and see what happens. Thanks. It works perfectly for me. http://www.cotse.com/tools/wordlists.htm Works for me - Peram -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi

Creating logs of builds (was - Re: Addition to Chapter 12)

Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 8/9/05, David Fix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Though I don't have an install.log file... Is that standard? >>(Aw crap, now I'm showing that I don't know how to create this file! :P) > > > See the last paragraph in >

Re: Cracklib setup

Randy McMurchy wrote: > Please, if you have a couple of seconds, try to navigate to the > following URL and see what happens. Thanks. It works perfectly for > me. > > http://www.cotse.com/tools/wordlists.htm Works for me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FA

Re: Cracklib setup

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/09/05 19:40 CST: > Please check out the changes and let me know what needs to happen > for round two. Round one changes are here: Alex entered into Bugzilla that the following link does not work. Please, if you have a couple of seconds, try to navigate to th

BLFS 6.1 Branch

I have made the changes to the 6.1 branch for the bugs targeted for 6.1 and set up for -pre2. I've not yet rendered on belgarath. Does anyone have any open issues before I generate -pre2? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/bl

Re: Cracklib setup

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 08/08/05 04:26 CST: > Sorry for the non-constructive wording. Let's try this: > [snip] Okay, Alex, I'm ready for the second round of editing to make things "just right". I committed round one, with the following changes: 1) Used most of the text you pro

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Fix wrote: > > *!$%# ! (translate that as "nice catch, Randy" for those > > with sensitive > > eyes). Actually, it's libbfd, libopcodes, and libiberty. I hadn't > > spotted that in my logs. Fortunately, only static and > > libtool versions. > > Zounds! So since I inst

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> Note that you can redirect to a file in *append* mode by using >> > instead of >. Example: Yeah, I'd known that stuff... :) I just thought that "make install" in most standard packages made this mysterious install.log file. *blush* Ah, sometimes my naivete (and spelling errors) shine through

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

David Fix wrote these words on 08/09/05 18:45 CST: > Awesome. :) Thank you both. :) I always like to see stuff as I > compile/install/whatever it, just so I can see it's still doing something. > ;) Thanks again, both of you! You're welcome! Note that you can redirect to a file in *append* m

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> > See the last paragraph in > > > packing.html>. > > Tush's suggestion is good, however, if all you want to do is create > a log file without thousands of lines of stuff scrolling across your > screen just redirect the output usin

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 18:25 CST: > On 8/9/05, David Fix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Though I don't have an install.log file... Is that standard? >>(Aw crap, now I'm showing that I don't know how to create this file! :P) > > See the last paragraph in >

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

On 8/9/05, David Fix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Though I don't have an install.log file... Is that standard? > (Aw crap, now I'm showing that I don't know how to create this file! :P) See the last paragraph in . --

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> Static versions of the 3 libraries mentioned above are installed by > the Binutils package. I'm not sure what all else might have been > overwritten by installing GDB the way you did. Install GDB in a > private directory for a complete list of files that are installed, > or closely review your in

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> or closely review your install.log file created during the GDB > installation (you do have one, right?). Um... Ah... Of course I do. If I hadn't deleted my gdb install directory. :P I guess I'll just reinstall binutils, or will it actually matter? Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.o

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

David Fix wrote these words on 08/09/05 16:45 CST: >> Actually, it's libbfd, libopcodes, and libiberty. I hadn't >>spotted that in my logs. Fortunately, only static and >>libtool versions. > > Zounds! So since I installed gdb without cd'ing into the gdb directory > before doing a "make install"

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> *!$%# ! (translate that as "nice catch, Randy" for those > with sensitive > eyes). Actually, it's libbfd, libopcodes, and libiberty. I hadn't > spotted that in my logs. Fortunately, only static and > libtool versions. Zounds! So since I installed gdb without cd'ing into the gdb directory b

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:40:28AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > What say the group? Groovy. BTW, just taking a quick peek at my buildscript for strace (I can't remember how long it was that I wrote it), strace is a cmmi package. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your op

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 15:44 CST: > On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>So, to me, the ESP version of GhostScript provides all of GNU's >>functionality plus more. Win-win using ESP. :-) > > Except that it lags the GNU release and hence will always be p

Re: GCC-4.0.1

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/01/05 13:33 CST: > [snip all about creating a branch] I am now convinced that a branch for GCC4 in BLFS is not necessary. There isn't that much that is going to be changed, and maintenance of the branch would be a lot of extra work. I haven't test much mult

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, to me, the ESP version of GhostScript provides all of GNU's > functionality plus more. Win-win using ESP. :-) Except that it lags the GNU release and hence will always be playing catch-up. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:57 CST: > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>Or am I wrong about this and it is nothing more than CMMI? > > *!$%# ! (translate that as "nice catch, Randy" for those with sensitive > eyes). Actually, it's libbfd, libopcodes, and libiberty. I

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:09 CST: > ESP Ghostscript is basically GNU Ghostscript + CUPS related patches. > So it will always lag the GNU Ghostscript release. So if one uses GNU > GS with the pstoraster from the cups tarball, it looks to me like a > win-win situation - new f

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > I don't install it using configure-make-make install. I use the > following: > > configure > make > make check-gdb > cd gdb > make install > > Notice the 'cd gdb' before 'make install'. This is how my build script > is laid out, and though my memory is

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:31 CST: > http://espgs.sf.net which takes me to a site on cups.org that mentions > 7.07 and the download link takes me back to sf. My browser is doing something different. When I click on the link you show, it takes me to a site on cups.org where

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:09 CST: > > > Not a very good choice of words on my part. What I meant is the GNU > > Ghostscript is now maintained with two releases in 2005. I didn't know > > ESP GS had a release since their

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:09 CST: > Not a very good choice of words on my part. What I meant is the GNU > Ghostscript is now maintained with two releases in 2005. I didn't know > ESP GS had a release since their website still shows the 7.x version. Hmmm. What website are y

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

On 8/9/05, David Fix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Notice the 'cd gdb' before 'make install'. This is how my build script > > is laid out, and though my memory is fuzzy about this, I 'cd gdb' so > > that the readline, libiberty, etc. libraries aren't installed along > > with the gdb executable. >

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

David Fix wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:04 CST: > First off, what's CMMI? :D configure && make && make install > Secondly, I didn't do the "cd gdb" before I did > the "make install"... Is that going to cause me any problems? I don't remember. I know that I was paranoid that GDB may copy t

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:04:36PM -0400, David Fix wrote: > > First off, what's CMMI? :D Secondly, I didn't do the "cd gdb" before I did CMMI: Centre for Molecular Microbiology and Infection or maybe, Capability Maturity Model Integration but I'm pretty sure in this instance Randy means Config

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think removing ESP Ghostscript would be a mistake. I have had good > success using it with all the printers I've ever set up. I must use > CUPS for printing and ESP Ghostscript works perfectly with it. I > don't know I would ever use anoth

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> Notice the 'cd gdb' before 'make install'. This is how my build script > is laid out, and though my memory is fuzzy about this, I 'cd gdb' so > that the readline, libiberty, etc. libraries aren't installed along > with the gdb executable. > > Or am I wrong about this and it is nothing more than

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/09/05 13:32 CST: > And so forth and so on as I think of (and y'all provide) more ideas > to include on this page. These items will also be included: Numeric (python numerical extension) Boost FFTW GOB GTK bindings SWIG Valgrind More ideas are welcome! --

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Randy McMurchy wrote: And so forth and so on as I think of (and y'all provide) more ideas to include on this page. 'ddd' I believe is the preferred (read stable & currently well-maintained) GUI frontend for gdb. Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/ Download URL: http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:01 CST: > This is a reasonable thing to do. It would also act as a TODO list as > we can then transistion the links to full install pages in the same > chapter as time allows. Here is the lead-in paragraph for the new section. Please comment. "This s

Re: FontConfig installation

Randy McMurchy wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:41 CST: I'd say workaround it for now by just installing the docs by hand, if my opinion counts for anything over here in BLFS land :) That is exactly what has been done. OK, thanks for letting me know. I'm not subscrib

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:58 CST: > OK, but please BZ this request with a 6.1 target. Done. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 12:04:00 up 129 days, 11:37, 2 users, load a

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Guys, > As I review bugzilla, there are seven bugs against 6.1-pre1: 1491, > 1497, 1507, 1508, 1510, 1512, and 1513. I know that MIT Kerberos (1350) > has also been updated in the trunk and could be integrated into 6.1. > I've added 1515 and 1516 (mys

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Randy McMurchy wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose a new section added to Chapter 12 - Programming. > > A section titled "Other Programming Tools" > > In this section would be nothing but links to the home pages for various > other programming tools such as Strace and GDB. > > Granted, mos

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:31 CST: > > >>OK. I have no problems with a -pre2. > > > You could merge the changes from r4902 in as well. It is a note to > DejaGNU to run the test suite. Different than most other packages, > the test suite must be after '

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:31 CST: > OK. I have no problems with a -pre2. You could merge the changes from r4902 in as well. It is a note to DejaGNU to run the test suite. Different than most other packages, the test suite must be after 'make install', so that the 'runtest' pro

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Randy McMurchy wrote: > > In BLFSspeak, section = page. Right. Thanks. ;) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:46 CST: > It sounds alright, but if you're only providing links and not build > instructions, do you really need an entirely new section? Wouldn't one > page suffice? In BLFSspeak, section = page. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

David Fix wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:45 CST: > Definitely. :) I was quite surprised to find that there was no GDB in BLFS > whatsoever... :) I mean, yeah, I can easily download, build, and install > it, but for people who may not know where to find it... Great idea. :) Which bring me

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >> What say the group? > > It sounds alright, but if you're only providing links and not build > instructions, do you really need an entirely new section? Wouldn't one > page suffice? Just re-read your original comment - I see that I might have misund

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Randy McMurchy wrote: I'd like to propose a new section added to Chapter 12 - Programming. A section titled "Other Programming Tools" In this section would be nothing but links to the home pages for various other programming tools such as Strace and GDB. Sounds good. Justin -- http://linu

Re: Addition to Chapter 12

Randy McMurchy wrote: > What say the group? It sounds alright, but if you're only providing links and not build instructions, do you really need an entirely new section? Wouldn't one page suffice? -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.or

RE: Addition to Chapter 12

> In this section would be nothing but links to the home pages > for various > other programming tools such as Strace and GDB. > > Granted, most programmers would already be aware of these tools, but > for folks coming from other platforms, it would be an quick and easy > source to the links for

Addition to Chapter 12

Hi all, I'd like to propose a new section added to Chapter 12 - Programming. A section titled "Other Programming Tools" In this section would be nothing but links to the home pages for various other programming tools such as Strace and GDB. Granted, most programmers would already be aware of th

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

Richard A Downing wrote: > How are these -pre releases > validated? Is it (1) just a matter of putting it up there for a bit to > see if anyone finds a bug? Or is there (2) some rigourous methodology > being followed by someone to ensure everything works (together)? With approximately 360 packa

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Guys, > As I review bugzilla, there are seven bugs against 6.1-pre1: 1491, > 1497, 1507, 1508, 1510, 1512, and 1513. I know that MIT Kerberos (1350) > has also been updated in the trunk and could be integrated into 6.1. > > Does anyone know of any other outstanding issue

Re: Working towards 6.1 final

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/09/05 10:10 CST: > Does anyone know of any other outstanding issues? I will go through my notes and get back to you. Ken submitted two more security fixes, one for MySQL and one for Apache HTTPD. Do we need to address these? > I intend to fix the > above bu

Working towards 6.1 final

Guys, As I review bugzilla, there are seven bugs against 6.1-pre1: 1491, 1497, 1507, 1508, 1510, 1512, and 1513. I know that MIT Kerberos (1350) has also been updated in the trunk and could be integrated into 6.1. Does anyone know of any other outstanding issues? I intend to fix the above b

Re: Option "CLOSE_SESSIONS" in login.defs - shadow.

DJ Lucas wrote: > > Judging only from my limited understanding of the comments, short of any > security concerns allowing close_pam_session, it'd seem that this should > be the default if PAM is installed. Are there any security concerns > here? I mean the modules would have to be explicitly c

Re: [RFC] Multiple ghostscript packages

Tushar Teredesai wrote: [RFC 1] The BLFS instructions state that the pstoraster patch cannot be applied to AFPL Ghostscript. This seems to be incorrect. I know. The AFPL only restricts redistribution, so patching the software and using it internally is allowed... ...but does not work out of