Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
There was a PDF file that ESP ghostscript opened perfectly and GNU
ghostscript didn't.
It's here: http://www.nims.go.jp/apfim/pdf/CoFinemet_JAP.pdf
With the default settings, it should display just fine. But, in order to
improve readability of old PDFs from
Hi
In the following page, the first link starts with lots of ../../..(but the
target is good)
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.1/introduction/bootscripts.html
regards
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Hi all,
Noted in the MySQL instructions is a message to run 'make test'.
I have *always* had trouble getting this suite to run with some error
or another. I can't remember it ever once completing successfully for
me. Here is today's error:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Has anyone ever got the tests to run successfully, by just doing what
is shown in the book (make test)?
Yes. I tested that 4.1.13a builds and tests with the book's
instructions earlier this week, prior to filing bug 1515.
System was pure64 x86_64
../../..(but the target is good)
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.1/introduction/bootscripts.html
regards
That is correct. It is that way to accomodate the mirrors.
At present the html code is:
a href=
../../../../lfs/view/stable/chapter07/bootscripts.htmlspan class=
Alex wrote these words on 08/12/05 12:10 CST:
Couldn't it be:
a href=
../../../../lfs/view/stable/chapter07/bootscripts.htmlspan class=
urlbootscripts page/span/a
so more readable and, I think understandable by the mirrors?
Yes, it could be. However, what you gain in
On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST:
* Release: For general use. Currently 2.3.4 2.2.7.
* Stable Release: Currently 2.2.6. Proved stable thru general use.
* Testing Release: Unstable.
It looks like the release to
On 8/12/05, Tushar Teredesai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have two options:
(1) Go with the stable release. In this case we should also use the
same timestamp versioned tarballs that they use.
(2) Go with the general release (currently 2.3.4).
I have no particular preference, but if asked
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 15:59 CST:
The book is currently at 2.2.24.
Agreed (pretty easy to see). :-)
What I meant was the download URL's would indicate we are using
the 2.2.x 'release' version, which right now would be 2.2.27
We have two options:
(1) Go with the
On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 16:07 CST:
The OpenLDAP developers also recommend the same thing:
http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/226.html.
Yeah, I had seen that, but it actually conflicts what they say in
the
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/12/05 17:11 CST:
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 08/10/05 04:15 CST:
Log of the already installed packages attached,most of them confirmed to work
libxml2-2.6.20
This is odd. LibXML2 crapped out for me during the 'make'.
runtest.o: In function
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with compiling libxml2-2.6.20 using the LFS-GCC4
branch. I'm not sure that it is a GCC4 issue however, I think it perhaps
could be an issue with Glibc-2.3.5, which is also used in current
LFS-SVN.
If anyone could offer their experience trying to compile LibXML2 using
a
12 matches
Mail list logo
