Re: Bootstrap GCC Pass 1 or 2? (was Re: Resolution)

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au writes: The bottom line is we still no don't know the cause of the issue you are seeing. Until we understand all the issues, I'm very reluctant to majorly alter a build method which has held us in good stead for approx' 4 years. This problem is so far

Re: stray references

El Lunes, 27 de Agosto de 2007 14:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: SVN-20070820 When I compiled PCRE, and others, butterfly-build appears in the compiler output and harmful or not, that is unclean and unacceptable. On a LFS or CLFS-based system, both current and old versions, there is a lot

Re: stray references

El Lunes, 27 de Agosto de 2007 19:46, M.Canales.es escribió: Actually, the solution for the book is do nothing, IMHO. That references to the GCC and Binutils build trees has been on all *LFS-based systems from years ago without known issues. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886:

Ticket #2066 - automake-1.9.6 fails gcj4.tests

In http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2066, the submitter says: automake-1.9.6, when I get to the make check step, it fails one test. Several letters back and forth with the Ralf @ automake, revealed two things: 1: gcj is never installed by the LFS process. 2: automake's gcj4.test

Re: LFS 6.3-rc2 acknowledgments page

On 8/12/07, Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 08:19:28PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I've redone the acknowledgments page in my sandbox, but have not committed yet. Does this look OK to everybody?

Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated

On 8/13/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ftp://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/lfs-packages/version;/shadow-shadow-version;.tar.bz2 http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/LFS/lfs-packages/version;/shadow-shadow-version;.tar.bz2 These will be symlinks to conglomeration and all the

Re: Ticket #2066 - automake-1.9.6 fails gcj4.tests

On 8/27/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2066, the submitter says: automake-1.9.6, when I get to the make check step, it fails one test. Several letters back and forth with the Ralf @ automake, revealed two things: 1: gcj is never

New bash/readline patches for 6.3?

I'm checking for opinions on including the new bash and readline patches from upstream. http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2067 http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2068 I would personally like to include these as upstream provided patches for bug fixes are usually safe. I

Re: New bash/readline patches for 6.3?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:08:01 -0700, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm checking for opinions on including the new bash and readline patches from upstream. http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2067 http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2068 I would personally like to

Re: Ticket #2066 - automake-1.9.6 fails gcj4.tests

On 8/27/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/27/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2066, the submitter says: automake-1.9.6, when I get to the make check step, it fails one test. Several letters back and forth with the Ralf

Ready for 6.3?

As far as I know, all outstanding issues for 6.3 are complete. I'd prefer not to do the new bash patches quite yet. The changes from -rc2 are: man-db fixes patch Linux-2.6.22.5 shadow URL minor bash testsuite fix LFS-Bootscripts-20070813 acknowledgements page If we don't get this out soon, we

Re: Ready for 6.3?

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:28:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Are there any objections to releasing what is in branches/6.3 tomorrow night as 6.3 final? We have to let go at some point. Now seems a decent enough time. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: