I'm trying to install GTK-Doc-1.19 (BLFS 7.3) and the configure command
terminates with this error:
checking for XML catalog (/etc/xml/catalog)... found
checking for xmlcatalog... /usr/bin/xmlcatalog
checking for DocBook XML DTD V4.3 in XML catalog... not found
configure: error: could not find Doc
Hi ! there.
This is first time i'm sending mail to ask some favour. I've recently
finished LFS-7.2 and am now on BLFS. I've installed gtk-+3.6.4 and am having
some issues with it. To begin with, i'm not able to make login sound work.
While installing gtk-+3.6.4 themes, i found login and l
Hi ! there.
This is first time i'm sending mail to ask some favour. I've recently
finished LFS-7.2 and am now on BLFS. I've installed gtk-+3.6.4 and am having
some issues with it. To begin with, i'm not able to make login sound work.
While installing gtk-+3.6.4 themes, i found login and l
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:55:19 -0500, William Harrington wrote
>> ?/usr/lib/libnurses.so?
> We don't install the nurses library in LFS or BLFS. That's way beyond
> BLFS. Usually when your system is sick.
> You may have a spelling error there. Not sure if it is in the email or
> during your Cmake co
> > That's unfortunate. BLFS is much harder to use now.
> >
> In what way is it harder ? The releases were always a little out of
> date (or very out of date!), and for the development book it has
> always been best to download a tarball of the book so that it doesn't
> change under you. Mos
On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 09:38 -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
> Certainly. I do have goals to get to. But a newbie would, I think,
> benefit from being told that (s)he needs to build certain dependencies,
> with PERHAPS some guidance to what a good set would be, before getting
> to the goal of a function
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 01:57 +0100, Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Am 25.12.2012 10:28, schrieb Simon Geard:
>
> > Hmm... it occurs to me that while using FS monitoring (or your 'find'
> > based approach) is neat, it's not parallel-safe. I'm guessing you don't
> > install more than one package simultaneous
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 09:38:25AM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
(missed this one-line comment earlier)
>
> > There was no enthusiasm from the editors - I know, I was keen on
> > releases, but nobody else was.
>
> That's unfortunate. BLFS is much harder to use now.
>
In what way is it harder ?
Am 25.12.2012 10:28, schrieb Simon Geard:
> Hmm... it occurs to me that while using FS monitoring (or your 'find'
> based approach) is neat, it's not parallel-safe. I'm guessing you don't
> install more than one package simultaneously? My current build scripts
> basically consist of a generated Ma
>
> I think if we stripped away all the
> foliage from the systems we use, we'd find underneath a fairly common,
> consistent set of packages--from which our individual interests caused
> divergences, mostly by addition. I think what the newbie wants is a
> page in BLFS that lists the packages, a
>> Do you, personally, see an actual problem with the "open BLFS index,
>> search for name of package like Firefox, click and go down
>> dependencies" approach? I know that's exactly what I did when *I* was
>> a newbie, and it worked fine.
>
> I don't build a ladder to get to one fruit, I build a p
> Hmm... it occurs to me that while using FS monitoring (or your 'find'
> based approach) is neat, it's not parallel-safe. I'm guessing you
> don't install more than one package simultaneously? My current build
> scripts basically consist of a generated Makefile to deal with
> dependencies, and it
On Tue, 2012-12-25 at 12:15 -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
> I did in a previous post. q.v.
Ok, just went back to look at that post which I seem to have missed.
In general, Ken has already covered most of what I'd say in reply, but
I'd also note that much of the stuff you list is just dependencies. Y
>> Yes, I'd agree with that. Broadly speaking, what I think people want
>> are either specific applications like Firefox which we cover along
>> with the dependencies, or broader packages like Gnome or KDE which we
>> cover as entire sections. In what way is the current system not
>> adequate?
>
>
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 12:15:59PM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
> > For a server, I doubt there is very much commonality.
>
> But, 1) the newbie isn't very likely to be asking how to build a server,
Well, the original post referred to wireshark, libpcap, unixodbc -
to me those are very specialised
> For a server, I doubt there is very much commonality.
But, 1) the newbie isn't very likely to be asking how to build a server,
and 2) even so there are security and manageability tools that would be
common to a client, e.g. log management, networking & firewalls.
> For a desktop I suspect the
On Tue, 2012-12-25 at 06:28 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> But then, I'm an admitted heretic - in my scripts I build and
> install as root : DESTDIR/INSTALL_ROOT are for when I'm looking at a
> package, not when I'm installing it ;) To be honest, I spent some
> weeks trying to use DESTDIR installs as
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 02:02:43PM +1300, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 10:34 -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
> > For myself, after my first LFS-4.1 build, all by hand with copious
> > written notes from the book, I began using a "directory watcher" called
> > "git" by Ingo Bruekel. It was
On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 10:34 -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
> For myself, after my first LFS-4.1 build, all by hand with copious
> written notes from the book, I began using a "directory watcher" called
> "git" by Ingo Bruekel. It was apparently "abandon-ware", and I found a
> few "fixes" necessary. An
On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 19:29 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> For a server, I doubt there is very much commonality. For a
> desktop I suspect the common packages stop fairly soon after building
> Xorg. For myself, getting my preferred wm is basically followed by
> firefox with system libraries. Everyt
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:34:17AM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> But all this isn't, I think, the point from the modern newbie's
> perspective. Because modern distros strive to provide a complete
> desktop environment competitive with common, errrm, commercial software,
> they hide what the funda
For myself, after my first LFS-4.1 build, all by hand with copious
written notes from the book, I began using a "directory watcher" called
"git" by Ingo Bruekel. It was apparently "abandon-ware", and I found a
few "fixes" necessary. And of course, the name got usurped. So I
renamed my version, b
>From a newbie's perspective, of course, I think the problem with the
"work backward" approach is it's easy to miss things that the newbie
doesn't know (s)he also needs, e.g. log handling, firewall. I think, in
most cases, the newbie first needs a "general purpose" end-user system
that's manageabl
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:58:45PM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
> Yes, "daily driver" is a slang term that originally meant the car one
> drives daily to work, shopping, errands, etc.; utilitarian as opposed to
> the car one might drive for fun or to impress. Thus, by extension, it
> is sometimes use
>
> If you want an example of one way to build a desktop, you can take a look
> at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/updating-lfs.html
>
> -- Bruce
>
>
Bruce -- that's an interesting and useful article. For logging my own
build I still like Paco (http://paco.sourceforge.net). I
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Paul Rogers wrote:
>> > I am a newer at LFS, and I seek to success; but I need help; I made
>> > my LFS - kernel and Isucceed but i face difficulties about the BLFS;
>> > because I don`t know which programs- packages i should download. I
>> > used to download using
Yes, "daily driver" is a slang term that originally meant the car one
drives daily to work, shopping, errands, etc.; utilitarian as opposed to
the car one might drive for fun or to impress. Thus, by extension, it
is sometimes used as I intended to refer to the computer one uses
everyday for normal
On 12/22/2012 01:11 PM, Paul Rogers wrote:
>>> I am a newer at LFS, and I seek to success; but I need help; I made
>>> my LFS - kernel and Isucceed but i face difficulties about the BLFS;
>>> because I don`t know which programs- packages i should download. I
>>> used to download using wget [webpage
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:11:18AM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> The BLFS book, from the newbie's perspective, might benefit by
> identifying the bones of a manageable end-user "daily-driver", at
> least getting them that far.
I googled for daily-driver: the urban dictionary says it is
something
> > I am a newer at LFS, and I seek to success; but I need help; I made
> > my LFS - kernel and Isucceed but i face difficulties about the BLFS;
> > because I don`t know which programs- packages i should download. I
> > used to download using wget [webpage] command; and i got the
> > Wireshare, Lib
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 12/21/12 09:20 CST:
> Yes, the first time will be tedious and involve a lot of planning.
> That's partly because there are now so many packages available.
Oh you're being too kind, Ken. I can sum up the two sentences I quoted with:
Dependency Hell!
--
Randy
rml
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 03:06:05AM -0800, Rilinda Hoda wrote:
> Dear readers;
> I am a newer at LFS, and I seek to success; but I need help;
> I made my LFS - kernel and Isucceed but i face difficulties about the BLFS;
> because I don`t know which programs- packages i should download.
> I used to
Dear readers;
I am a newer at LFS, and I seek to success; but I need help;
I made my LFS - kernel and Isucceed but i face difficulties about the BLFS;
because I don`t know which programs- packages i should download.
I used to download using wget [webpage] command; and i got the Wireshare,
Libpcap
http://pezeteh.angelfire.com/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Thanks for help
I tried to install the latest versions of libffi, librep, rep-gtk and
sawfish in that order as you told me. No problem during "configure" but
"make" ended up with following last lines:
[...]
make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/sawfish-1.5.3/scripts'
make[1]: Enteri
hai sir i have building the blfs system ...
during my fontconfig installation i have the following errormsg ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/sources/fontconfig-2.4.2# make
make all-recursive
make[1]: Entering directory `/sources/fontconfig-2.4.2'
Making all in fontconfig
make[2]: Entering directory `/so
Wasent that what I sugested 4 days ago :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:31:39PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> As a compromise, perhaps it would be best to update the header
> description to say that the patch is required for any version of GCC
> greater than 3.whateveritis.x.
That does sound like a nice resolution. Better than the other
On 3/31/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:47:23PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> >
> > It simply isn't that hard to determine what "required patch" means.
>
> It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a
> gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standar
Archaic wrote these words on 03/31/06 17:19 CST:
It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a
gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standard compliance patch. I also agree the
patch should be renamed to reflect its new purpose (i.e. fix compile
errors with gcc-4) if for no other re
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:47:23PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> It simply isn't that hard to determine what "required patch" means.
It is simply a matter of perspective. Technically, the patch isn't a
gcc-3 patch, but rather a C standard compliance patch. I also agree the
patch should be rena
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/30/06, Richard A Downing FBCS CITP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gmail can be so configured.
>
> Really? I completely missed that. Please enlighten me how to get
> bottom-posting.by default.
>
> --
> Dan
My mistake, it can't. I am absolutely damn sure it could when
On 3/30/06, Richard A Downing FBCS CITP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gmail can be so configured.
Really? I completely missed that. Please enlighten me how to get
bottom-posting.by default.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
>
> Henry,
> You are a dirty Top Poster :-) Please use our netiquet when
> contributing on the LFS list. See FAQ. Gmail can be so configured.
Sorry about that, I see you are already a reformed character.
Blessed are the sinners come to repentance. :-)
R.
--
Henry christenson wrote:
> A simple grammer change would reslove the issue. here is how it
> appears in the book.
> Required Patch (if compiled using GCC-3.4.x)
>
> This tells readers If you are compileing with any varient of gcc 3.4
> you need this patch.
>
> all that would need to be done to r
A simple grammer change would reslove the issue. here is how it
appears in the book.
Required Patch (if compiled using GCC-3.4.x)
This tells readers If you are compileing with any varient of gcc 3.4
you need this patch.
all that would need to be done to reslove this from being posted again is.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/28/06 22:16 CST:
This was brought up a while back. The patch name needs to be changed
to indicate gcc4.
I'll just have to disagree with your thinking.
The book says it is a required patch. The patch has been required
since that ver
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/28/06 22:16 CST:
This was brought up a while back. The patch name needs to be changed
to indicate gcc4.
I'll just have to disagree with your thinking.
The book says it is a required patch. The patch has been required
since that version of GCC. Nothing ha
On 3/28/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Required patch: ..."
>
> I'm not sure what there is we can do to make it more clear that it
> is a required patch. The name of the patch should be irrelevant. I
> suppose the description part of the patch header could be updated,
> but that
Henry christenson wrote these words on 03/28/06 20:06 CST:
Me using gcc 4 thought i wouldent need the patch because
of the way its mentioned in the book.
Thanks for the input, though I'm not really sure there's anything
we'll do about it. The way it is mentioned in the book is:
"Required patc
Excuse for my English. After start xface 4.2.3.2 and rendering of a
mouse pointer to menu items Xorg take off. Thus following messages are
output:
(xfce-mcs-manager:3768): libxfce4mcs-CRITICAL **:
mcs_manager_add_channel_from_file: assertion ` filename! = NULL **
strlen (filename)> 0 ' failed
(xf
"方成"激光(镭射)打标机一种产品的成功不仅仅取决于它的质量和价格,其外在的形象也变的越来越重要。随着各行业技术的不断进步和客户要求的不断提高。采用激光打标技术取代传统的标记方法(如喷码,电腐蚀,电火花,冲压,油压,丝网印刷等)已成为一种趋势。现在已有越来越多的行业和产品开始使用这项技术,它对于产品的外在美观及品牌的提升有着不可忽视的作用。方成激光是由深圳市方成实业有限公司引进欧美先进激光技术,与国内外激光界资深人士合作,共同创建而成的。主要从事激光打标机,激光点焊机等激光加工设备的研发,生产和销售,并提供相应的自动化解决方案。产品已广泛应用于珠宝首饰,水暖卫浴,五金工具,汽摩配件,
IraqiGeek wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : /root-bash-3.00#
This is after I commented the export PS1 lines in in bashrc and profile
in /etc. I also double checked .bash_profile in the home directory of
root, which I created just yesterday, and it doesnt have any references
to PS1. How can I remove
Allard Welter wrote:
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 09:14, Tor Olav Stava wrote:
IraqiGeek wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : /root-bash-3.00#
This is after I commented the export PS1 lines in in bashrc and
profile in /etc. I also double checked .bash_profile in the home
directory of root, which
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 09:14, Tor Olav Stava wrote:
> IraqiGeek wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] : /root-bash-3.00#
> >
> > This is after I commented the export PS1 lines in in bashrc and
> > profile in /etc. I also double checked .bash_profile in the home
> > directory of root, which I created ju
IraqiGeek wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : /root-bash-3.00#
This is after I commented the export PS1 lines in in bashrc and
profile in /etc. I also double checked .bash_profile in the home
directory of root, which I created just yesterday, and it doesnt have
any references to PS1. How can I remove
On 11/14/05, IraqiGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My problem is that if I customize the the prompt, I will still get a
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /PATH before any prompt string that I set. Imagine this if
> I am
> in a subdirectory, the prompt will be something like this:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/[EMAIL
On Nov 14, 2005, at 7:34 PM, IraqiGeek wrote:
My problem is that if I customize the the prompt, I will still get
a [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /PATH before any prompt string that I set. Imagine
this if I am in a subdirectory, the prompt will be something like
this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:59:53AM -, IraqiGeek wrote:
Hi all,
After finishing LFS, now I'm continuing with the BLFS book. I am having
an
issue with the prompt no matter which user I log on with. The prompt I am
getting, when logged in as root for example, is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : /root-b
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:59:53AM -, IraqiGeek wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After finishing LFS, now I'm continuing with the BLFS book. I am having an
> issue with the prompt no matter which user I log on with. The prompt I am
> getting, when logged in as root for example, is:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi all,
After finishing LFS, now I'm continuing with the BLFS book. I am having an
issue with the prompt no matter which user I log on with. The prompt I am
getting, when logged in as root for example, is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : /root-bash-3.00#
This is after I commented the export PS1 lines in
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:32:44 -0400 (Etc/GMT), Mukesh Kaushal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello there,
> My LFS-5.1.1 is runnin' fairly.I've also made a live cd of it and it is
> also workin'nice on every machine.I've also extanded my LFS by installin'
> a desktop environment.I mean .. now a fully
Hello there,
My LFS-5.1.1 is runnin' fairly.I've also made a live cd of it and it is
also workin'nice on every machine.I've also extanded my LFS by installin'
a desktop environment.I mean .. now a fully customized linux is runnin' on
my machine .. but when I tried to make a live cd now of this exis
63 matches
Mail list logo