- Forwarded message from Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
To: "Archaic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
From: "Sisyphus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:43:22 +1000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
Subject: Re: PDL build failure with perl-5.8.8
>
> All I need to know
Russiian fine Ladies here doing elegant bloowjob.
http://legacylearningacademy.info/zgangtee/?iYeR-gfO.YbWPMeSVXRhSjQhc,VSd
D..e.I.e.t.e
http://legacylearningacademy.info
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: S
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 4/17/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
>>
>> Only mainline and 4_1 branch received the fix. It doesn't seem to
>> indicate that 4.0 is affected, so I don't know if this is your mysql
>> bug.
>>
>
>
On 4/17/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
>
> Only mainline and 4_1 branch received the fix. It doesn't seem to
> indicate that 4.0 is affected, so I don't know if this is your mysql
> bug.
Funny. The other duplicate of that bug wa
On 4/17/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not a programmer, so I cannot confirm or deny this guy's concern. I
> really only provide this link in curiosity if this may be related to the
> mysql testsuite failures.
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431184/30/0/threaded
This is ap
I'm not a programmer, so I cannot confirm or deny this guy's concern. I
really only provide this link in curiosity if this may be related to the
mysql testsuite failures.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431184/30/0/threaded
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your opera
Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
>> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
>> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's alre
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
> obsolete?
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 13:15 CST:
>
>> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
>> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
>> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's al
El Lunes, 17 de Abril de 2006 20:15, Andrew Benton escribió:
> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
> obsolete?
Due th
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 13:15 CST:
> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
> obsolete?
This issu
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
> obsolete?
Be
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
> kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves to a newer toolchain everyone
> will start using that. Why waste effort releasing a book that's already
> obsolete?
Mo
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, that's the current plan. We're trying to finish up the list of
tickets slated for 6.2 so we can branch for testing. Updated toolchain
for trunk will follow.
Is that wise? As it stands LFS is out of date. Old gcc, old glibc, old
kernel headers. As soon as trunk moves
Andrew Benton wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Great to hear. What glibc version were you using?
glibc-2.4. A cvs pull from the nineteenth of march.
If you use the official glibc-2.4 release tarball, when you untar
glibc-libidn-2.4 folder, make sure you rename it libidn (so that the
folder e
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
This is great news Andy. If you would be so kind, please put these
findings in the appropriate wiki pages so other users can know what
changes are needed.
Done. The OpenSP-1.5.1 fix may not be needed. Hopefully OpenSP-1.5.2
will be released soon.
Andy
--
http://linuxfroms
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Great to hear. What glibc version were you using?
glibc-2.4. A cvs pull from the nineteenth of march.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Good to hear. I'm hoping that LFS will cut a test branch soon so I
can update GNOME using the (what should be the next version of LFS).
But until I'm certain that trunk won't move to a new GCC or Glibc
before cutting the test branch, I really don't want to do a lot
of testin
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
There was a solution posted to lfs-dev:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-March/056141.html
Thanks, that worked great. I probably could have worked that out for
myself if I'd taken five minutes to think about it.
That's another `patc
>
> Hmm. Well, my knowledge of C++ isn't strong enough to say that's the
> right idea or not. However, fedora is using the same patch, so it
> seems safe:
seem to be an extra qualification error. This now fail an gcc 4.1 as it is
more strict on syntax. I correct lot of program is this way no pb
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Hello World!
>
> I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
> painless it was.
>
> Aspell-0.60.4 needed a sed
>
> sed -i 's,NroffFilter::process_char ,process_char ,' \
> modules/filter/nroff.cpp
>
> And so did OpenSP-1.5.1 (along with the usual
On 4/17/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> > But that's all that went wrong in BLFS. The main bustage was in LFS.
> > Groff-1.18.1.1 wouldn't compile with gcc-4.1 and I've not (yet) found a
> > fix, so I used groff-1.19.2 instead (without the internation
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 10:02:55AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Good to hear. I'm hoping that LFS will cut a test branch soon so I
> can update GNOME using the (what should be the next version of LFS).
> But until I'm certain that trunk won't move to a new GCC or Glibc
> before cutting the test b
On 4/17/06, Andrew Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello World!
>
> I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
> painless it was.
Great to hear. What glibc version were you using?
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfrom
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/17/06 09:49 CST:
> I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
> painless it was.
Good to hear. I'm hoping that LFS will cut a test branch soon so I
can update GNOME using the (what should be the next version of LFS).
But until I'm cert
Andrew Benton wrote:
But that's all that went wrong in BLFS. The main bustage was in LFS.
Groff-1.18.1.1 wouldn't compile with gcc-4.1 and I've not (yet) found a
fix, so I used groff-1.19.2 instead (without the internationalisation
support patch). I'm not sure what to do about that yet.
Ther
Hello World!
I've just rebuilt with gcc-4.1 and I was pleasantly surprised how
painless it was.
Aspell-0.60.4 needed a sed
sed -i 's,NroffFilter::process_char ,process_char ,' \
modules/filter/nroff.cpp
And so did OpenSP-1.5.1 (along with the usual patches)
sed -i 's,InternalInputSource
27 matches
Mail list logo
