On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:04:47AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
Anyway, I've now completed my normal desktop on x86_64 with intel
graphics. In case there is any doubt, I am standing by everything I
tagged for 7.4 in -rc1, with the exception of two packages (elfutils
and the ati video driver)
Em 31-08-2013 21:16, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:28AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I just rebuilt LFS in my sandbox with the new packages. It was
extremely clean. I had no FAILs at all and The only Errors were from glibc:
make[3]: ***
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:28AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I just rebuilt LFS in my sandbox with the new packages. It was
extremely clean. I had no FAILs at all and The only Errors were from glibc:
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error 1
make[3]:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:20:28AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I just rebuilt LFS in my sandbox with the new packages. It was
extremely clean. I had no FAILs at all and The only Errors were from glibc:
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error
Matt Burgess wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 17:22 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
the same
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 19:17 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
In the glibc build procedures, a simple sed to the glibc code seems to
fix the problem:
sed -i -e 's/static __m128i/inline /' sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/strstr.c
I am proposing that we add this to both Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of LFS.
Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Bruce, just replacing /lib/libc-2.18.so did no allow the machine to
reboot. I am a little too tired to go on now, could do wrong things.
Tomorrow morning, will backup and then try a complete replacement of
glibc, and the
Em 29-08-2013 08:00, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
...
I've created a new branch, /LFS/branches/test, that has the modified
instructions. You can use that to build a new lfs.
Build started, now.
...
sed -i -e 's/static __m128i/inline /'
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
the same time? Those all seem to have lower potential for problems than
the glibc
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
the same time?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:42:49PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
sorry, hit wrong key, sent it instead of saving it while I went to
check the name of the new keymap.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK,
Em 29-08-2013 08:00, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
Em 28-08-2013 23:19, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
I suppose that you could also try to just chroot from the host and
rebuild glibc as in Chapter 6 with the sed. I think in that case you
might get away with:
sed -i
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:45:44PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
{{
Message from syslogd@VMWLFS74 at Thu Aug 29 15:38:31 2013 ...
VMWLFS74 kernel: [ 159.826533] task: f60a32a0 ti: f60c4000 task.ti:
f60c4000
Message from syslogd@VMWLFS74 at Thu Aug 29 15:38:31 2013 ...
VMWLFS74
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:43:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd, and/or kmod at
Ken Moffat wrote:
But if the kernel oopsed then there could be damage elsewhere in
the kernel's data structures. I haven't been paying close attention
to the details of what you are doing, but if you were rebuilding
glibc in the guest then it might just be an example of our general
don't
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:43:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:02:41AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I'll do a -rc2 today. I think it best to slip the stable release to
September 7. Should we update to the newer gettext, kbd,
On 08/29/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October
or early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two? -- Bruce
30 to 60 days?
I would like to see LFS-7.4 followed by BLFS-7.4 in a timely fashion.
--
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OTOH the more we change for newer and shinier versions, the less
reason people have for respecting the -rc name.
But we are discussing -rc2, not a stable release. If we didn't have the
glibc issue, I wouldn't be suggesting
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:04:00PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/29/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October
or early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two? -- Bruce
30 to 60 days?
I would like to see LFS-7.4
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October or
early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two?
Yeah. I might even have upgraded my own server to 7.4 by then.
But to be honest,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October or
early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two?
Yeah. I might
On 8/29/2013 6:52 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:04:00PM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
On 08/29/2013 05:37 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October
or early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two? -- Bruce
30 to 60 days?
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Right now I'm thinking about a potential BLFS release in mid-October or
early November. After 5 years, what's a month or two?
Em 29-08-2013 21:29, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Just to inform that test (to be acknowledged as rc2) finished and javac
presented me its version without complaining!!!
real589m41.118s
The SBU unit value is equal to 123 seconds.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrating
the problem.
Upon doing some research, we found that a change upstream in glibc
Em 28-08-2013 21:17, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrating
the problem.
Upon doing some
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Bruce, just replacing /lib/libc-2.18.so did no allow the machine to
reboot. I am a little too tired to go on now, could do wrong things.
Tomorrow morning, will backup and then try a complete replacement of
glibc, and the report back.
If you have the LFS book
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 07:17:07PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Fernando and I have been having a discussion about some errors that have
come up on the i686. The initial indications were a seg fault when
running javac. Even doing a simple 'javac -version' was demonstrating
28 matches
Mail list logo
