Ken Moffat wrote:
If LC_ALL isn't set correctly, then the results may well not be
reliable. But, I'd expect that to show in build or testsuite failures.
I will be very surprised if this results in any difference except
/usr/share/info/dir when starting from a modern host.
--
Alexander E.
Submitted By: Hugo Villeneuve
Date: 2005-12-15
Initial Package Version: 2.3.6
Origin: Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Upstream Status: N/A
Description: This patch fixes the following error during compilation:
../sysdeps/generic/wordexp.c: In function 'exec_comm':
../sysdeps/generic/wordexp.c:815
Hi,
In light of a some recent requests to lfs-support on this subject,
I've decided to ping the list with this patch again.
This issue is that when running gcc-3.4.3 or 3.4.4 on Linux-2.6.12+
breaks precompiled headers (PCH) due to an introduction of a feature
called exec-shield-randomize. This
Greg Schafer wrote:
It's amazing how such a simple concept can apparently be troublesome for
some folks to grasp.
What I have trouble understanding is the fact that, apparently, one
shouldn't reboot during the ICA cycle. What I thought was trying to be
proved here was that a) any suitable h
Hi
Interesting thread :-/
First up, ICA is not the be all and end all. It's just another tool in the
armory in ensuring a good build. And it's not perfect either..
It's amazing how such a simple concept can apparently be troublesome for
some folks to grasp. I was hoping my scripts would have bee
On 12/16/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > You sound like you've done the recursive build a number of times and
> > anticipate these differences in farce. I'd rather nip that one in the
> > bud and just keep the same environment.
> >
> Not
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 12/16/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just seemed that you were taking offense to my suggestions or you
assumed I was taking shots at your tool. If not, then that's good
because I didn't mean either.
Great
As pertains to the testing,
On 12/16/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> what did I say that makes you think I'm hurt ? I haven't been offended
> by your comments, and I hope mine weren't offensive to you, I certainly
> didn't intend that. I welcome an opportunity to discuss testing, and I
> intended to
Ryan Oliver wrote:
> We require 2.6 for current lfs to build nptl (though not if the initial
> toolchain is replaced with a cross-lfs style setup).
>
> So, build a 2.6 kernel and install module-init-tools :P
>
> And yes, there are needed package upgrades that need to be done on the
> host from o
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 12/16/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
< snip everything >
Ken, I seemed to have offended you and I'm sorry that happened. I
really don't mean to bad mouth the way you've tested or the tool
you've created to assist. I was only arguing the
On 12/16/05, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
< snip everything >
Ken, I seemed to have offended you and I'm sorry that happened. I
really don't mean to bad mouth the way you've tested or the tool
you've created to assist. I was only arguing the case for doing ICA
for the sake of testing th
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Ken Moffat wrote:
I seem to recall that in repeated standard LFS i686 builds, these same
binaries can in fact differ, without anybody ever quite knowing why - this is
why Greg's ICA, at least last time I looked, did -three- builds to compare
which bytes always differed.
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
That's my prime objection to Greg's method - we always tell people
fbbg, but the comparison takes a shortcut.
Right, but for the purposes of testing, the environment should be as
consistent as possible. That's standard procedure for running a test
13 matches
Mail list logo