On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:06:03PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
The other, iproute2-2.6.22-070710, is something we need to discuss. The
problem is with the packaging. The package expands to the current
directory. The issue is what to do. Here is what I see as the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Ken Moffat wrote:
ip/routef lifesaver
This sounds fairly important, but I have no idea if it actually is...
incorrect initialization
Depending on whether this would get hit by any of our users, it may be
important. Probably not critical
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Here's the results from what is currently in the branch:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/test.log
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/search_dirs.log
One last thing dude. Could you please advise exactly what host system
you're using and also show the output
On 7/23/07, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Jackson wrote:
I can hack the init scripts a bit to get it to work, but its
command line parameters are not very intuitive. This was my least
favorite upgrade from 5.x. I do understand the need for the update.
(IPv6
On 7/23/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/23/07 22:06 CST:
The other, iproute2-2.6.22-070710, is something we need to discuss. The
problem is with the packaging. The package expands to the current
directory. The issue
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I thought the reason for using iproute2 was because net-tools is
unmaintained.
Yes, when the discussion for the change took place, this was the main
reason.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
a/BOOK/general.ent b/BOOK/general.ent
index c5c3f47..aced25c 100644
--- a/BOOK/general.ent
+++ b/BOOK/general.ent
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1?
-!ENTITY version SVN-20070723
-!ENTITY releasedate July 23, 2007
+!ENTITY version SVN-20070724
+!ENTITY releasedate July 24, 2007
On 7/24/07, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd personally rather use the new version
since it syncs to the 2.6.22 interfaces and that's the kernel we'll be
running. I'll try poking the maintainer again.
Thanks Dan. Maybe keeping the package freeze open for IPRoute2 Glibc-2.5.1
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I was going to edit something on the ncurses page the other day and
noticed some in chained commands. It seems that usual way in LFS is
not to do this. Compare the linker script section of ncurses to the
localedef commands in glibc.
This is a continuation from here:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-July/059737.html
Starting a new thread because the last one was getting unwieldy and had
several different topics running through it.
Greg, the host I was working from was a current CLFS development
snapshot.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:08:04 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ACK the DB, NCurses and Man-DB bits.
The rest of the bits look fine to me as well.
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
Hello,
the following failure appears during iptables-1.3.7 compilation against
linux-2.6.22.1 headers (spotted during a full rebuild of the LiveCD):
make[2]: Entering directory `/lfs-livecd/packages/iptables/iptables-1.3.7'
make PREFIX=/usr LIBDIR=/lib BINDIR=/bin MANDIR=/usr/share/man
The following text is obsolete, because there is no /etc/fonts/*.conf
file, and DejaVu is known to Fontconfig-2.4.2 by default:
Earlier it was mentioned that |/etc/fonts/fonts.conf| could be
modified to use DejaVu using the default family names. Since DejaVu is
a replacement for Bitstream
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:50:58 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
the following failure appears during iptables-1.3.7 compilation against
linux-2.6.22.1 headers (spotted during a full rebuild of the LiveCD):
Any chance you could give iptables-1.3.8 a try please? I've not
Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:50:58 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
the following failure appears during iptables-1.3.7 compilation against
linux-2.6.22.1 headers (spotted during a full rebuild of the LiveCD):
Any chance you could give
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
As an aside, the effects of their not having a /lib64 dir or symlink
seems to be that if I want to use a CLFS system as a host, I *must* use
their pure64 patch. I tried a build last night without using that patch
and just using --disable-multilib and appropriate
Hello Everyone,
I'm trying to decide how best to alter the x86_64 branch. If we adopt
the basic principles from DIY-Linux, it would mean that as far as build
instructions go, we only have to add 3 things:
* Add --disable-multilib to each build of GCC (this has no effect on a
x86 build)
* In
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I'm trying to decide how best to alter the x86_64 branch. If we adopt
the basic principles from DIY-Linux, it would mean that as far as build
instructions go, we only have to add 3 things:
snip /
Even with all the above, it seems much simpler than
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, do we want x86_64 to be a separate book, or simply roll
these small changes into a conglomerate book with x86?
I'd certainly prefer them to be in the same book, or at least in the same
sources/svn
Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, do we want x86_64 to be a separate book, or simply roll
these small changes into a conglomerate book with x86?
I'd certainly prefer them to be in the same book,
My biggest
Alan Lord wrote:
* Bootloader, or rather lack-of
Yes, I keep forgetting about the boot loader. There's one more
difference - we'd probably want to add lilo/bin86 to the build.
Of course, you can always install grub to the mbr or partition without
installing grub's shell into the OS. Use the
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:39 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, do we want x86_64 to be a separate book, or simply
roll
these small changes into a conglomerate
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hmm, that nightmare seems a bit extreme. Certainly, for native x86-64,
which is the only additional target we're contemplating at the moment, having
2 paragraphs (or small sections at the most) in the book surrounded in the
relevant profiling syntax, doesn't seem too
Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:39 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, do we want x86_64 to be a separate book, or
simply
roll
these small
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need
to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open
Can we cut trunk to a release/testing/6.3 branch so that we can begin
doing 7.0 type work on trunk?
--
JH
--
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need
to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open
Can we cut trunk to a release/testing/6.3 branch so that we can begin
doing 7.0 type work on trunk?
I
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I tagged 6.3-rc1. I also added 7.0 to the wiki milestones and 6.3-rc1
and 7.0 to the versions for tickets.
Thanks. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
El Martes, 24 de Julio de 2007 17:59, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
My biggest problem with this approach is that it gets to be a nightmare
to edit. But, it is do-able.
See how HLFS manages the Glibc/uClibc - Linux-2.4/2.6 books flavours and ask
Robert if it hard to maintain. Four sepparte books
On 7/24/07, M.Canales.es [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Martes, 24 de Julio de 2007 17:59, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
My biggest problem with this approach is that it gets to be a nightmare
to edit. But, it is do-able.
See how HLFS manages the Glibc/uClibc - Linux-2.4/2.6 books flavours and
El Sábado, 21 de Julio de 2007 01:42, Dan Nicholson escribió:
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
El Martes, 24 de Julio de 2007 19:51, Dan Nicholson escribió:
Out of curiosity, will the Relax NG XML ease in generating multiple
books from a common source?
Not, what Relax-NG make more easy is to customize the schema declaration. I.e,
to add new tags or attributes (placed on a diferent
El Martes, 24 de Julio de 2007 20:12, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
M.Canales.es wrote:
I prefer to use the HLFS-way for x86_64 integration.
Well, you obviously know that setup better than I do. If you could help
me set that up, I'd appreciate it.
I have many fronts open right now, with
M.Canales.es wrote:
Could you continue using the x86_64 branch for now until jhalfs-2.3 will be
released?
No problem.
I think that at the weekend I will can start mergin the x86_64 changes into
trunk. For a full set-up a new top-level index.html file must be created and
the Makefile need
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the first
release candidate of LFS 6.3. Please see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.3-rc1/chapter01/whatsnew.html
for a complete list of new packages since the last release.
This being a test release, we would appreciate you taking
I updated the website and have created the -rc1 files. In the
announcement to lfs-announce, the subject erroneously says 6.2-rc1
instead of 6.3-rc1, but the contents are correct. I won't send a
correction to lfs-announce becuase we can fix it with -rc2 or the stable
6.3 announcement as
Manuel,
I don't know if it matters at this point, but the new version of the
XSL stylesheets were released.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 07/24/07 17:10 CST:
Manuel,
I don't know if it matters at this point, but the new version of the
XSL stylesheets were released.
Keep in mind that the .0 versions of the stylesheets are not the
stable series.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.23] [GNU ld
37 matches
Mail list logo
