results here from an older system (specifically an LFS dev version
from around mar 2006)
mincore011 PASS : expected failure: errno = 22 (Invalid argument)
mincore012 PASS : expected failure: errno = 14 (Bad address)
mincore013 FAIL : call succeeded unexpectedly
mincore014
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 March 2007 00:31, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Just a note to say I was trying out the LTP today on my 6.2 test system.
>>
>> http://ltp.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> I ran the tests and got four failures:
>>
>> mincore01 FAIL 1
>> gf15
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 00:31, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just a note to say I was trying out the LTP today on my 6.2 test system.
>
> http://ltp.sourceforge.net/
>
> I ran the tests and got four failures:
>
> mincore01 FAIL 1
> gf15 FAIL 1
>
Hi,
Just for editors:
I will update tomorrow the book sources to use DocBook-XML DTD 4.5.
This is the first step (and the most simple) of the XML-tools updates planned
for this spring.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano:
El Miércoles, 21 de Marzo de 2007 19:09, Matthew Burgess escribió:
>
> Wow, sorry about that. I could have sworn I'd done that already. Anyway,
> it's done now.
Verified and confirmed that the catalog resolution works. Thanks.
Working on the commit now...
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario d
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 17:57, M.Canales.es wrote:
> > #1893 (docbook-4.5) has a patch
> > available so that's a no-brainer really.
>
> Looks like it is not installed yet on quantum :-?
Wow, sorry about that. I could have sworn I'd done that already. Anyway,
it's done now.
> I will made th
El Miércoles, 21 de Marzo de 2007 02:05, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Hi folks,
>
> Progress appears to being made toward a 6.3 release. We currently have 9
> tickets to resolve before we can push another release out[0].
Great :-)
> I'm happy to postpone the rendering toolchain related bugs #1947
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:31:29AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Thanks Bryan. It's still a mystery to me. I tried a 2.6.20.3 kernel
> last night and it still failed for me.
Well, I can try installing 2.6.20.3 to see if it also fails for me;
perhaps 2.6.19.1 is an oddball? I know it has some othe
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been trying to figure out why the attached file fails on my LFS
>> systems. It does not fail on FC or RHEL kernels.
>
> Neither mincore01 nor mincore02 fail on my (C)LFS system either. But
> it's not exactly LFS, so it's probably not a great tes
Hi out there.
Due to the mozilla security announcements
( http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/ )
concerning versions 1.5.0.9, I was inclined to upgrade both to 1.5.0.10.
I had to recognize that, while the pago-patch from BLFS still applies,
the system_nss patch didn't like to
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been trying to figure out why the attached file fails on my LFS
> systems. It does not fail on FC or RHEL kernels.
Neither mincore01 nor mincore02 fail on my (C)LFS system either. But
it's not exactly LFS, so it's probably not a great test.
It's a multilib x86-64 setu
11 matches
Mail list logo
