Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/26/05 22:46 CST:
> Glibc Headers
[snip highly technical and best as I can figure, well-reasoned analysis]
Thanks, Greg. I am interested in hearing from the pro-remove-headers
folks in response to your message.
Hopefully, there will be continued discussion. T
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> That said, I have always respected your ideas, though often I've
> thought your delivery was less-than-stellar.
Like it or lump it :-)
> You made a recent post
> which said that Jim's latest mass-change had some technical issues,
> but you didn't discuss the reasons why y
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Archaic wrote:
Has this been sent upstream?
Probably, by Debian. That's where I got the fix from.
Has anyone else managed to find any archives of the bug-gawk mailing
list, which is where bug reports are supposed to be sent. At least
Greg Schafer wrote:
Couldn't agree more. In this regard, I'm pleased to report that Ryan
and myself have smoked the virtual peace pipe and have put any bad
blood that may have existed behind us. I hereby apologize for any bad or
negative things I may have said in public about Ryan in the past. We
Ryan Oliver wrote:
> Now a few comments after reading this thread...
> 1) I support what Jim has done (though I haven't had time to test it),
> anything that removes a pile of builds is a good thing for lfs.
Excellent.
> 2) Please all, enough with the attitude. We are all working towards the
> s
Greg Schafer wrote:
> But seriously, seeing as GCC-4.x appears OK,
> maybe it doesn't matter much that the wrong sysctl name is used. But
> reading the comments in the patch, it does worry me a bit :-( Feel free
> to take a stab at enhancing the patch then attach it to 14400 in the GCC
> bugzilla
Jürg Billeter wrote:
> Do you think you're the only one able to understand some parts of
> cross-building a system?
Of course not. I think you're being a tad silly.
> Your first post on diy-linux where you talk
> about cross compilation dates from May 27, 2005. I've committed a
> toolchain build
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:12:18PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> The logs can be improved somewhat, especially the part where syslogd and
> klogd are stopped and restarted after rotation, rather than simply
> reloading it after it. That should work too.
Gerard, FWIW sysklogd never needs res
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Well it looks easy enough to fix. Is it as simple as I think it
> isreplacing the fopen to point at the different filename...better if
> the open call to exec-shield-randomize fails, then go for
> randomize_va_space...assuming the data contained in each is the same.
> Or che
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
> Examples please? Just showing us vague changelog messages and saying
> you researched that is not very convincing.
Justin, with all due respect, and this is not directed specifically at
you, but it appears there is still a tendency within LFS for folks to jump
into de
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/26/05 19:15 CST:
> However, it's apparent that anti-Greg sentiments are still rife
> within LFS. Hopefully the spirit of cooperation that Matt and I have been
> discussing will help resolve this.
I hope so. You left the LFS project before I arrived. Now, under
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The BLFS book is sorely in need of a package used to rotate, compress,
> store, archive, whatever - various log files.
>
> Traditionally, this has been the logrotate package. I'm going to try
> to get a package into the book before 6.1 is released. I probably s
Okay all, let's just drop this right here and now please.
I don't want to see another (flame) war start here. Jim said he looked
at your work Greg, but he didn't use it. That looking at your work bit
may account for some/most of the log entries you have been seeing.
The coincidental timing of
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> What evidence?
Surely I don't need to point out how easy it is to determine who is
accessing what and when and where from, using apache logs, ip addresses,
dns, etc etc etc?
> Secondly you say that you made those changes in the diy cross build as a
> result of your resea
El Miércoles, 27 de Julio de 2005 00:10, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> I would like to think that if Cross-LFS has a chance at becoming the
> default build method, the group should be involved with the project
> from the beginning.At least that's how I see it.
Nothing prevent to you or other people
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
they could have very easily replied to the change on lfs-book, or
emailed Jim personally.
You kind of hit the nail there. There are people who thought, or
assumed, that this was already happening. I can understand that the type
of change that was made would go against s
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 07/26/05 17:33 CST:
[snip good stuff]
> If we want this list to return to what
> it used to be, we first need to brush up on our inter-personal skills.
> The rest will automatically follow.
Well said. And I, as much as anyone, need to follow the above
sugges
Randy McMurchy wrote:
However, if there is a chance that the Cross-LFS stuff
can/will/should/might be/whatever the official "LFS product", then
folks should be able to discuss things and recommend/suggest changes,
starting now.
I can see your point - public interest, ideas and discussion often
Hi all,Apache 2.0.54 (and most likely earlier versions as well) won't compile against OpenSSL 0.9.8. See this post for a fix:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200507.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sincerely,
Laurens
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http:
On 7/26/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The root of the problem seems to be openssl. libcrypto should havelinked against libdl. On my system I see the following line whenconfiguring openssl: EX_LIBS =-ldland the resulting openssl libraries (atleast the shared ones) get
linke
A theory on why it might be disabled now may have to do with the fact
that this is so on other journaled filesystems such as reiserfs. Could
have been an honest mistake.
I don't know the history of ext3 very well. Perhaps once upon a time
they did suggest not to run those checks and this has c
I suppose you and I will just have to disagree with the philosophy
of this method of operation. Understand it is okay to disagree,
disagreement fosters discussion, and providing the discussion stays
civil, can only be a good thing.
I couldn't agree with you more on that. After all, changes in po
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 07/26/05 16:57 CST:
> For all intents and purposes it might as well be running on Jim's
> private machines while it is being developed and turned into something
> usable that can be integrated with the LFS Book.
>
> When Cross-LFS gets to a point it becomes
Guys,
I just talked to Jim a bit ago to try and clear up the issues as of late
surrounding cross-lfs, what the status in general is, etc.
First off let me start to clarify that cross-lfs is not made part of LFS
officially in that it is integrated with the book and goes through the
regular Qu
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Archaic wrote:
Has this been sent upstream?
Probably, by Debian. That's where I got the fix from.
Has anyone else managed to find any archives of the bug-gawk mailing
list, which is where bug reports are supposed to be sent. At least
that's what README in the
Hi all,
This problem still exists in svn-20050725. Could someone please comment on David's solution and may be fix the book?
LaurensOn 7/8/05, David Fix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys, I wasn't sure which list to post this to, so I posted it to bothBLFS support and BLFS Development...I'm usin
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just a topic which really doesn't need discussion on this list, however,
> one item is worth mention (question to Bruce).
>
> I just updated Anduin with the new CrackLib files. I find it interesting
> how much better (and, of course, faster) Gzip compresses tex
Hi all,
Just a topic which really doesn't need discussion on this list, however,
one item is worth mention (question to Bruce).
I just updated Anduin with the new CrackLib files. I find it interesting
how much better (and, of course, faster) Gzip compresses text files than
Bzip.
The CrackLib wor
Following my house move, and change of ISP, my LFS documents:
LFS-References
Essential Pre-reading for LFS
How to convert LFS to use runit instead of SysVinit
are back on-line in my new domain.
http://www.langside.org.uk/lfsdocs
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscra
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Ryan Oliver wrote:
>
> Indeed I have seen this a couple of times...
>
> >From (possibly faulty) memory I recall noticing it in chroot builds
> (which for convenience is predominately what I have done of late...)
> will check my logs and get back to you...
>
Thanks, I'll appr
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 13:31 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> I've definitely got a strangeness in my current build scripts for
> pure64 x86_64 from i686. First time I built it, running make check on
> target glibc hung in inet tests. Looking at it, I discovered I had
> omitted the fix_test patch. App
TheOldFellow wrote:
OK, we have some i18n 8-bit users, but multibyte? I see some names than
might be Chinese on the list occasionally.
Of course we have them, even among the editors! Namely, Matthew Burgess
(he tries to use en_GB.UTF-8):
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lf
I've definitely got a strangeness in my current build scripts for
pure64 x86_64 from i686. First time I built it, running make check on
target glibc hung in inet tests. Looking at it, I discovered I had
omitted the fix_test patch. Applied that, tests completed.
This time, I'm trying to get ri
TheOldFellow wrote:
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I also wanted to get some internationalisation work sorted out for LFS,
so where are the non-8bit-language (indeed, apart from Manuel and Alex,
where are the non-ASCII) volunteers to test this? It'
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> OK, we have some i18n 8-bit users, but multibyte? I see some names than
> might be Chinese on the list occasionally.
>
I imagine some of our german-speaking users might prefer to use utf. I
often see posts (not necessarily on lfs lists) where there a
El Martes, 26 de Julio de 2005 04:16, Gerard Beekmans escribió:
> Clutter will be a concern. The TOC has to be clean and easy to navigate.
> Like I said above, a chapter re-organization may be required to maintain
> a logically flowing TOC where you don't get lost.
Actually at this momment we a
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 00:24 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> That said, for a by-the-book LFS + BLFS installation it doesn't make
> much sense to have multiple directories since there is only one
> version of automake installed. That is the reason I symlink them on my
> system.
Heh, same here, th
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:54 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> BTW: I've asked Ryan why he didn't use the simpler build method and IIRC
> he replied that he wants to keep the compatibility with older toolchains
> that don't support the simpler method.
True, but it is a moot point for lfs which will o
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Additionally, of course, cross-lfs is to be
> > seriously considered at this point. I've not looked at Jim, Ryan,
>
> Opinions seem divided on this one. Should cross-lfs become part of the
> mainstream book? In other words,
On Die, 2005-07-26 at 09:52 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote:
> For the record, here is what Jim changed:
[...] snipped the "evidence" list
> For the record, all of my cross research is available via mailing list
> postings and scripts on the DIY website. It's there for anyone to see. The
> anti-LFS senti
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>>I also wanted to get some internationalisation work sorted out for LFS,
>>
>>so where are the non-8bit-language (indeed, apart from Manuel and Alex,
>>where are the non-ASCII) volunteers to test this? It's all very we
41 matches
Mail list logo
