- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Huntwork" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: {B,C}LFS State of Things (was Re: SVN-20070706: ...)
> Indeed. I meant to drop something in, but forgot about it. bin86/lilo
> would probab
Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>>
>>
> I'll give you java, so I have to accept there are binary 64-bit
> applications. But I can't find any 64-bit binaries for firefox or
> opera.
>
>
>
I could have sworn they existed but I just checked and couldn't find
them either. So strike two more off the list
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Another jhalfs helper. As has been discussed before, it would be nice to
> mark the screen sections with an attribute to announce that it will be
> installing to the system rather than just working in the source/build
> tree. Manuel suggested adding the attribute userlevel="i
Another jhalfs helper. As has been discussed before, it would be nice to
mark the screen sections with an attribute to announce that it will be
installing to the system rather than just working in the source/build
tree. Manuel suggested adding the attribute userlevel="install", so I've
done that fo
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 07:10:59PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > "all those nice 64 binary packages" - I suppose that means nvidia
> > or ati kernel modules ? I don't know of anything else that comes as
> > 64-bit without source.
> >
> >
> I know a few people use Opera
On 7/20/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > The 1.9.x versions, too?
> >
> I'll have to check on the more recent versions. I know that 1.9.2 (the
> last time I tried) still needed a 32bit glibc. I don't have a pure64
> build around but I think the new one (1.9.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> but I figured I'd show what I have and give someone else the opportunity
> to build it if they like and/or look for any obvious errors.
It appears you haven't allowed for a surprising gotcha that means
GCC-Pass2 will search for libs on the host thus rendering the build me
Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> "all those nice 64 binary packages" - I suppose that means nvidia
> or ati kernel modules ? I don't know of anything else that comes as
> 64-bit without source.
>
>
I know a few people use Opera too. I personally use a binary JDK if I
need java. If someone wanted to use
>From 464c7bc0fa13ca8d6eb554d798eae2186867ac14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:20 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Add package info in sect1info elements
I've been playing around with jhalfs and I realized that there was no
easy way to access the
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:29:20PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the rendered book:
>>> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-x86_64
>>>
>>>
>> You have correctly dropped grub from the l
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:06:00PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:29:20PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the rendered book:
> > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-x86_64
> > >
> > You have c
El Viernes, 20 de Julio de 2007 22:54, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> Indeed. I meant to drop something in, but forgot about it. bin86/lilo
> would probably be alright. Anyone tried grub2?
IMHO, for now lilo should be used due that the build commands could be copied
from CLFS.
For the future, see
On 7/20/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:29:20PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> >
> > Here's the rendered book:
> > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-x86_64
> >
> You have correctly dropped grub from the list of packages (nobody
> has managed to buil
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:47:16PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> Depends on how the changes are applied in the branch.
>
> If the branch will contains only x86_64 pure64 libs commands for now (i.e.
> replacing the needed x86 trunk commands by the ones for pure64), current
> jhalfs should work fin
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 09:51:48PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> A slightly bigger problem might be that you don't seem to have a
> replacement for it.
Indeed. I meant to drop something in, but forgot about it. bin86/lilo
would probably be alright. Anyone tried grub2?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscra
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:29:20PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Here's the rendered book:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-x86_64
>
You have correctly dropped grub from the list of packages (nobody
has managed to build it successfully on a pure64 system), but it's
still referenc
El Viernes, 20 de Julio de 2007 22:29, George Boudreau escribió:
> Should we add lfs-x86_64 to to jhalfs now or wait a few weeks/months?
> I assume there will be a multi-lib version after all objections/ideas
> have been aired. (planning ahead for jhalfs)
Depends on how the changes are applied
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:38:30AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. I think just to get started on handling multiple
>> arches in LFS, we should focus on non-multilib 64 and just symlink
>> /lib -> /lib64. Hopefully it doesn't bite elsewhere, but I think
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:38:30AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I think just to get started on handling multiple
> arches in LFS, we should focus on non-multilib 64 and just symlink
> /lib -> /lib64. Hopefully it doesn't bite elsewhere, but I think it's
> the fastest way to ge
On 7/20/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:59:31PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> >
> >> LFS could be made to accommodate x86_64 (multilib) with very few changes
> >> and a bunch of new pages. Where multilib gets tricky is where lfs stops
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:45:37PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> There is even a bigger problem with non-multilib builds. The way clfs
> does it, all the 64bit libs go into /lib and such. FHS specifies ld.so
> for 64bit x86_64 to be at /lib64/ld-linux-x86_64.so.2. If ld.so is in
> /lib, all those
On 7/20/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Viernes, 20 de Julio de 2007 19:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> > OK, I'm going to commit that. Do you mind if I use a similar variable
> > in jhalfs/LFS/lfs.xsl?
>
> If you have commits right to the ALFS repo, fell free to do the changes.
N
El Viernes, 20 de Julio de 2007 19:22, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> OK, I'm going to commit that. Do you mind if I use a similar variable
> in jhalfs/LFS/lfs.xsl?
If you have commits right to the ALFS repo, fell free to do the changes.
I'm very busy now trying to install some usable host system w
On 7/20/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Viernes, 20 de Julio de 2007 02:08, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> > Manuel,
> >
> > I was playing with the dump-commands output and saw a couple things that
> > I thought could be cleaned up. First, I think it's nicer to create a
> > global varia
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:59:31PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> LFS could be made to accommodate x86_64 (multilib) with very few changes
>> and a bunch of new pages. Where multilib gets tricky is where lfs stops
>> and blfs begins. With the introduction of pkg-config
El Viernes, 20 de Julio de 2007 02:08, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Manuel,
>
> I was playing with the dump-commands output and saw a couple things that
> I thought could be cleaned up. First, I think it's nicer to create a
> global variable for newlines instead of always using the entity directly.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> The one sticking point is the same sticking point I had with dmraid
>> -- how do you get the /dev/md/* named device nodes to be recreated
>> once the initramfs is finished, from the system bootscripts?
>
> I think
27 matches
Mail list logo
