On 2/7/07, Barius Drubeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:55, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > builds against the sanitized headers, too. I suppose we could add a
> > note that says you can build more extensions against the raw kernel
> > sources at your own risk.
>
> Isn't it
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:55, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> builds against the sanitized headers, too. I suppose we could add a
> note that says you can build more extensions against the raw kernel
> sources at your own risk.
Isn't it a really bad idea to be building against a different version
o
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:33 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 11:19 CST:
>
> >> For example, one test looks for $KERNEL_DIR/net, while other tests
> >> look for $KERNEL_DIR/include/linux/...
> >>
> >> Which means in order to work, there would have to be a
On 2/7/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It sure would be nice if we could identify what those extra modules
> and extensions *do*, and why almost everyone else's Iptables installation
> seems okay without them (at least there's been no reports of breakage
> or folks needing them).
On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Which means in order to work, there would have to be a /usr/net
> > dir, which will never happen in a sanitized header installation.
Another example I just noticed is ipt_NETLINK.c. The test is looking
for $KERNEL_DIR/net/ipv4/netfilter
Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 11:19 CST:
>> For example, one test looks for $KERNEL_DIR/net, while other tests
>> look for $KERNEL_DIR/include/linux/...
>>
>> Which means in order to work, there would have to be a /usr/net
>> dir, which will never happen in a sanitized header insta
On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I didn't really understand the sanatized kernel
> headers stuff before this, but I do now!
>
> One question this leads me onto though - is the Linux-Libc-Headers
> project still being maintained? The download area I've f
> > As per the other post that I've just sent, I think the problem is that
> > the sanitized headers are a bit out of date.
>
> It isn't that the sanitized headers are "a bit out of date". Actually,
> Iptables is using headers that are not installed at all using
> sanitized headers.
>
> For examp
Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 11:09 CST:
> As per the other post that I've just sent, I think the problem is that
> the sanitized headers are a bit out of date.
It isn't that the sanitized headers are "a bit out of date". Actually,
Iptables is using headers that are not installed
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:59 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 10:25 CST:
>
> > Hmmm, they don't work :-) There's about a dozen extensions that
> > (silently) don't get compiled or installed.
>
> Yes, I see that now. Thanks, Andy.
>
>
> > Okay, how abou
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:55 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:32 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > > On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't mean modules as such. I mean extensi
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:55 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:32 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > > On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't mean modules as such. I mean extensi
Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 10:25 CST:
> Hmmm, they don't work :-) There's about a dozen extensions that
> (silently) don't get compiled or installed.
Yes, I see that now. Thanks, Andy.
> Okay, how about as a compromise, at least a note stating that for some
> extensions you h
On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:32 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't mean modules as such. I mean extensions. Each
> > > target/match for iptables has its own extension.
>
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:32 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I don't mean modules as such. I mean extensions. Each
> > target/match for iptables has its own extension.
>
> Yeah, you're right. Could you show the exact errors? I'm gue
On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't mean modules as such. I mean extensions. Each
> target/match for iptables has its own extension.
Yeah, you're right. Could you show the exact errors? I'm guessing that
our kernel headers are just too old in LFS-6.2.
--
Dan
-
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:21 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 10:11 CST:
>
> > So unless there is a really good reason for not using the KERNEL_DIR
> > variable, I would suggest that, at a minimum, the book is changed to
> > state that KERNEL_DIR should a
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:14 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The modules weren't compiling because iptables was using a default
> > include path of /usr/src/linux/include. This doesn't exist in LFS so
> > needs to be specified when making i
Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 10:11 CST:
> So unless there is a really good reason for not using the KERNEL_DIR
> variable, I would suggest that, at a minimum, the book is changed to
> state that KERNEL_DIR should always be set.
Well, this issue goes back years. And we consider a
On 2/7/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The modules weren't compiling because iptables was using a default
> include path of /usr/src/linux/include. This doesn't exist in LFS so
> needs to be specified when making iptables as follows:
>
> make PREFIX=/usr LIBDIR=/lib BINDIR=/sbin
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 16:25 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/06/07 16:02 CST:
>
> > Hopefully I'll get this in before 6.2 is released!
>
> No promises. :-)
>
>
> > Is it possible to update iptables to 1.3.7? I've checked the 'current
> > development' versio
>> Is it possible to update iptables to 1.3.7? I've checked the 'current
>> development' version of the book and iptables is still at 1.3.5
>>
>> I tried a few weeks ago to compile 1.3.7 on an LFS 6.2 system and found
>> that some of the modules didn't compile properly and weren't available
>> to u
Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/06/07 16:02 CST:
> Hopefully I'll get this in before 6.2 is released!
No promises. :-)
> Is it possible to update iptables to 1.3.7? I've checked the 'current
> development' version of the book and iptables is still at 1.3.5
>
> I tried a few weeks ago t
Hi,
Hopefully I'll get this in before 6.2 is released!
Is it possible to update iptables to 1.3.7? I've checked the 'current
development' version of the book and iptables is still at 1.3.5
I tried a few weeks ago to compile 1.3.7 on an LFS 6.2 system and found
that some of the modules didn't com
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 21:33 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I'm leaning to 6.2.0. Here's why:
>
> I don't know how to increment from 6.2 and still be within the LFS-6.2
> structure. BLFS-6.2.1 makes no sense if there wasn't a 6.2.0 version.
This is how most other projects do versioning though. If
* Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-26 19:05]:
> >I can only test on my scanner, but I do follow the xsane devel list. I
> >hope that's useful.
>
> That's awesome. Following the mailing lists is a big plus in my mind.
> Like I said above, just reporting your experience in Trac is very
> h
On 10/25/06, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 17:26]:
>
> It would be awesome if you could open a ticket about this so that it's
> not forgotten.
I just did. Could you take a look and see if it's ok? I assigned it a
pretty high priority
* Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 17:26]:
> On 10/23/06, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Not a package update, but I reported an error with the hdparm
> >instructions here:
> >
> >http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2006-October/015769.html
>
Dan Nicholson wrote in BLFS-Dev:
I much prefer that we move to 3 part versions, for all books,
+1
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
of the group giving +1, -1 votes for the desired choice of:
>
> 1. Change all the references of BLFS-6.2 to BLFS-6.2.0 and
>go forward.
+1
I already voted, but just to make sure my vote gets counted in the +/-1 system,
+1
I much prefer that we move to 3 part versions, for all boo
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> It's not clear to me why one way is easier than another. Setting either
> is merely an entity change. Setting either as a milestone is equally
> trivial.
Since you're the one that will make the appropriate changes to
the Trac system, and you classify the changes as "trivi
#x27;ve been out of town.
>
> [crossposted to lfs-dev, replies should be sent to blfs-dev]
>
> I am out of town right now and will be for a week. As far as
> the milestones go, let's go back to the old-fashioned method
> of the group giving +1, -1 votes for the desired choi
am out of town right now and will be for a week. As far as
the milestones go, let's go back to the old-fashioned method
of the group giving +1, -1 votes for the desired choice of:
1. Change all the references of BLFS-6.2 to BLFS-6.2.0 and
go forward.
2. Keep what we have (BLFS-6.2), and w
On 10/23/06, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-21 13:26]:
Not a package update, but I reported an error with the hdparm
instructions here:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2006-October/015769.html
It would be a
* Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-21 13:26]:
Not a package update, but I reported an error with the hdparm
instructions here:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/blfs-dev/2006-October/015769.html
which seems to have been lost.
> XSane http://wiki.linuxfromscra
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 10/21/06 12:45 CST:
>
>> I'd like to consider changing many of the Trac system tickets to post-6.2
>> status so that we can concentrate on getting a release candidate out.
>
> Using this thread as the BLFS
Randy McMurchy wrote:
XFSProgshttp://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2028
The current instructions in the book fail because of the 404 error. So
please update the package and add a note that -DNDEBUG flag is needed
only with CFLAGS set to some value.
NcFTP http://w
On 10/22/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 10/21/06 12:45 CST:
> I'd like to consider changing many of the Trac system tickets to post-6.2
> status so that we can concentrate on getting a release candidate out.
Using this threa
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 10/21/06 12:45 CST:
> I'd like to consider changing many of the Trac system tickets to post-6.2
> status so that we can concentrate on getting a release candidate out.
Using this thread as the BLFS 6.2 release notes thread, as the 'Subject'
Hi all,
I'd like to consider changing many of the Trac system tickets to post-6.2
status so that we can concentrate on getting a release candidate out.
Please review the list below and comment on anything you'd like to see
included in 6.2 (additionally, you may need to identify a resource that
wi
David Jensen wrote:
A bit more poking around shows, for both seamonkey and firefox:
ac_add_options --enable-pango does not really enable Thai, that needs
an additional option.
Could you please point me to the source that led you definitely to this
conclusion? There are sources that say the con
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 9/23/06, David Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> Now, if you wouldn't mind testing the --enable-pango patch, that
would
>> be fantastic. ...
> Okay, ...
Done, hey! most text looks better. But, yes, slower.
A bit more po
El Domingo, 24 de Septiembre de 2006 05:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> Cool. We should also look at upgrading to docbook-xsl-1.70.1. Is there
> a ticket for that?
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2088
See in the ticket the issues found when rendering *LFS books using
docbook-xsl-1.
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Building without --datadir here is the output of find /usr/X11R7/share.
>> Easy enough to compare it to build with --datadir to see the
>> differences. (I don't have a build with --datadir or I'd send a diff
>> between the
On 9/23/06, David Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> Now, if you wouldn't mind testing the --enable-pango patch, that would
>> be fantastic. ...
> Okay, ...
Done, hey! most text looks better. But, yes, slower.
Note: the patches apply (with offset),
David Jensen wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Now, if you wouldn't mind testing the --enable-pango patch, that would
be fantastic. ...
Okay, ...
Done, hey! most text looks better. But, yes, slower.
Note: the patches apply (with offset), I believe current policy is to
update the version ignoring
Am Samstag 23 September 2006 15:26 schrieb David Jensen:
> 1912: Doxygen-1.4.6 compilation, fixed with 1.4.7, see ticket 2039.
As I was the one, who reported the error, I can confirm, that doxygen works
flawlessly here. I've nearly built all API documentation of the BLFS packages
I use and didn'
On 9/23/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Building without --datadir here is the output of find /usr/X11R7/share.
Easy enough to compare it to build with --datadir to see the
differences. (I don't have a build with --datadir or I'd send a diff
between the outputs too.)
Here's my main c
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> 2119 and 2121: Xorg --datadir - Certainly worth looking at. I don't
> build the way the book says, and there were only one or two packages
> where this was an issue, IIRC. They might be fixed up now as I wrote
> most of my scripts against 7.0 and the autotools were still pret
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Now, if you wouldn't mind testing the --enable-pango patch, that would
be fantastic. You don't even have to install it as you can run from
the builddir since the mozilla scripts set all the appropriate
environment variables. Just build it up and run it. If it doesn't
crash,
On 9/23/06, David Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> 2010: Seamonkey - Bruce, I think you're the only one who builds
> seamonkey. I'd do it, but those Mozilla builds take like 3.5 hours on
> my box. If you (or whoever) builds it, please test the --enable-pango
> functional
Dan Nicholson wrote:
2010: Seamonkey - Bruce, I think you're the only one who builds
seamonkey. I'd do it, but those Mozilla builds take like 3.5 hours on
my box. If you (or whoever) builds it, please test the --enable-pango
functionality. You can probably copy the firefox pangoxft patch
directl
On 9/23/06, David Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Notes:
1). I would like to see the D-BUS/Hal updates real soon. They are
required now for several packages, and I had no luck building the new
versions.
My opinion here. I think we should stick with hal-0.5.7.1 and
dbus-0.61. I don't see
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> (I'll get the 6.3 milestone into the system tonight.)
Err, I'll do it now...
Done.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 09/22/06 15:20 CST:
>> On 9/22/06, Steffen Ungruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But now, 7 weeks after the LFS 6.2 release, I'll have to ask the question
>>> you'll all probably don
Randy McMurchy wrote:
It will be soon. I will be attempting to contact the individual BLFS
Editors to see what they would like to contribute in the next 5 weeks.
Their replies (and don't wait for me to contact you if you read this),
should be posted here so that the community can see what is slat
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 09/22/06 15:20 CST:
> On 9/22/06, Steffen Ungruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But now, 7 weeks after the LFS 6.2 release, I'll have to ask the question
>> you'll all probably don't want to hear: When will BLFS 6.2 be relea
57 matches
Mail list logo
