Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with
a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at
all.http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2, or roll
your own by using http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers.
--
http://linuxfromscratc
As I mentioned in ticket 1797 -
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1797 - Subversion 1.3.0 has
an issue with libxml2 where it does not actually use libxml2 (even if
you pass "--with-libxml2" to configure) unless expat is also installed
on the system. This still applies to version 1.3.
Archaic wrote:
> I would like to hear from Jim and everyone working on the header project
> regarding this possibility:
>
> Find the headers that llh currently lacks that glibc-2.3.6 and
> linux-2.6.16.x both support and patch them into llh. The only thing that
> comes to mind is inotify support.
On 4/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, gnome-vfs just checks
> for the existence of inotify.h. It has its' own internal copy called
> inotify-kernel.h that it uses.
Slight lie. The internal one is called local_inotify.h. It appears
that they used to try to include th
On 4/10/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:46:49PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> >
> > Either way, can you see any technical reasons why that would not make a good
> > stop-gap solution for inotify etc. support?
>
> Yes. We can just add the inotify header and call
On 4/10/06, Andrew Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gnome-vfs checks for sys/inotify.h (which comes from glibc) and
> linux/inotify.h (which comes from the kernel). If we do it the way
> you're suggesting it would find sys/inotify.h but not linux/inotify.h so
> it may work or it may not. I thi
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/10/06 15:19 CST:
> It was good enough for LFS-6
> http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/6.0/LFS-BOOK-6.0-HTML/chapter05/kernel-headers.html
>
>
> In chapter 6 glibc was configured --with-headers=/tools/glibc-kernheaders
Thanks for the research An
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
Well, if you say so... I know it was in unstable at least, shortly after
kernel 2.6 was introduced.
Either way, can you see any technical reasons why that would not make a good
stop-gap solution for inotify etc. support?
It was good enough for LFS-6
http://archive.linux
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:46 -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:28:48PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, the kernel headers were unpacked into
> > > /tools/glibc-headers before glibc in chapter 5, and glibc used
> > > --with-headers=/tools/gl
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:46:49PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
>
> Either way, can you see any technical reasons why that would not make a good
> stop-gap solution for inotify etc. support?
Yes. We can just add the inotify header and call it a day without
changing the method of building.
--
A
M.Canales.es wrote:
analisys
Mmm...sounds itchy. Have you tried using a cream?
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:28:48PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> >
> > If I recall correctly, the kernel headers were unpacked into
> > /tools/glibc-headers before glibc in chapter 5, and glibc used
> > --with-headers=/tools/glibc-headers for both chapter 5 and 6. That's it;
> > easy.
>
> W
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 21:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> I'll make another run later. I'm doing a run with all the testsuites.
> In automake right now. I'll be crossing my fingers that this won't
> be a problem.
I will start a new build now also.
iteration-1 now run until the end, but w
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:28:48PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, the kernel headers were unpacked into
> /tools/glibc-headers before glibc in chapter 5, and glibc used
> --with-headers=/tools/glibc-headers for both chapter 5 and 6. That's it;
> easy.
Which book were you
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:34:21PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> >
> > What about using kernel headers for building glibc, and linux-libc-
> headers
> > for userspace, like we used to do? My understanding is that the glibc
> > developers are still using/recommending this anyhow. Would certainly
On 4/10/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 21:12, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> > Yeah, that fixed it. I should report that one back to the author. :-)
> > Are you getting differences in the headers?
>
> Not full test yet. I'm fixing the bugs as they bombs t
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/10/06 14:09 CST:
> BTW, right now the admins are working on a way to restart ssh if it gets
> killed again.
Does it require reboot, or just starting a daemon?
Are there processes that must be killed before the SSH daemon will
start again?
Why I ask is because
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 21:12, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Yeah, that fixed it. I should report that one back to the author. :-)
> Are you getting differences in the headers?
Not full test yet. I'm fixing the bugs as they bombs the Makefile run ;-)
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LF
On 4/10/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that do_ica_files is skipping the full /usr/include/sys tree, and
> > maybe others files that match $PRUNEPATH pattners.
>
> Look like I have that fixed for jhalfs changing the /tmp/prunelist creation to
> this:
>
> for F in $1 ; d
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:34:21PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
>
> What about using kernel headers for building glibc, and linux-libc-headers
> for userspace, like we used to do? My understanding is that the glibc
> developers are still using/recommending this anyhow. Would certainly be the
> ea
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/09/06 17:59 CST:
>
>> Just about complete with the changes to add the usernotes.
>
> Done. Also changed the square brackets to angle brackets in all the
> tags (LFS is changing this as well).
>
> Bruce, if there is anything more, ho
On 4/10/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 15:33, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> > The ICA run finished up on the merged alphabetical/udev_update branch.
> > Results were as clean as always. Results can be found in the farce
> > and ica directories here:
>
> Pl
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/09/06 17:59 CST:
> Just about complete with the changes to add the usernotes.
Done. Also changed the square brackets to angle brackets in all the
tags (LFS is changing this as well).
Bruce, if there is anything more, holler. Changelog says it all, but
a su
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 20:39, M.Canales.es escribió:
> Please Dan, can you corfirm if the next file, for example, is into your
> copied trees for iteration analisys?
>
> ../usr/include/sys/procfs.h
>
> I think that do_ica_files is skipping the full /usr/include/sys tree, and
> maybe others
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 15:33, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> The ICA run finished up on the merged alphabetical/udev_update branch.
> Results were as clean as always. Results can be found in the farce
> and ica directories here:
Please Dan, can you corfirm if the next file, for example, is int
> I would like to hear from Jim and everyone working on the header project
> regarding this possibility:
>
> Find the headers that llh currently lacks that glibc-2.3.6 and
> linux-2.6.16.x both support and patch them into llh. The only thing that
> comes to mind is inotify support. Headers that ha
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 06:33:39AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> The ICA run finished up on the merged alphabetical/udev_update branch.
> Results were as clean as always. Results can be found in the farce
> and ica directories here:
Thanks for you hard work, Dan. This is very good news. :)
--
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:08:07AM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote:
>
> The kernel headers are not really ready for consideration for use at the
> moment as I see it, we've not even decided which way to go with headers,
> let alone got the header script to a point that could be considered stable.
>
> I
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:18:52PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> How long do you think does it needs to be tested?
Let me answer that with an example. gcc-4.0.x and mysql 5.0.{16,18,19}
produce problems. Mysql devs point to gcc since previous versions of gcc
work. If this is indeed a compiler bug
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 07:06, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> OK, here it is. I also updated the chapter07/hosts.xml file as
> discussed earlier.
>
Many thanks.
I will apply it after Jeremy and Archiac do the udev_update merge.
At the same time I will fix the images issue in the {C,H}LFS Make
On 4/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest that we focus on getting that 6.2 Milestone finished and close
> out any related tickets in Trac. Once we've got that done, branch for
> testing in preparation for releasing 6.2. *Then* we can get gcc-4.1 and
> glibc-2.4 in trunk a
On 4/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/roadmap
> I suggest that we focus on getting that 6.2 Milestone finished and close
> out any related tickets in Trac. Once we've got that done, branch for
> testing in preparation for releasing 6.2. *Th
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I wish I new, Bruce, but I haven't used glibc-2.4 at all, and I'm not
the expert there. If both glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1.0 went in to SVN, I'd
like to see both there at least a month or two before going into
release testing. And that month or two depends on whether there are
a
The ICA run finished up on the merged alphabetical/udev_update branch.
Results were as clean as always. Results can be found in the farce
and ica directories here:
http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/lfs-alpha-20060408-reports/
Test suites were not run since Manuel built the same boo
On 4/9/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > I just want to state for the record that I think that lumping
> > glibc-2.4 in just because we're trying to make a release is a bad
> > idea. Glibc affects practically (probably) every single package in
> > the system
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/09/06 23:10 CST:
> I just want to state for the record that I think that lumping
> glibc-2.4 in just because we're trying to make a release is a bad
> idea. Glibc affects practically (probably) every single package in
> the system. This is not on the same sc
Andrew Benton wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
be behind the power curve. We don't want to get multiple revisions
behind on these.
And there's the kernel headers issue to sort out too.
Andy
The kernel headers are not really
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
be behind the power curve. We don't want to get multiple revisions
behind on these.
And there's the kernel headers issue to sort out too.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ
DJ Lucas wrote:
For LFS, just remove the mention of usbfs on the fstab page, and the
rest falls into BLFS territory, preferably in the libusb page. Comments
referenced in the ticket suggest that both can coexist, so just add the
rules file and make mention of the old usbfs interface and suppl
39 matches
Mail list logo
