DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 05:16 AM, LANOUX Bertrand wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have noticed the "unknown HZ value" message still appears at boot
>> time and under some unpredictable circumstances when running the ps
>> command, even after applying the procps-3.2.8-fix_HZ_errors-1.patch
>> (I
Taken from cross-lfs:
sed -i 's@\(^#define DEFAULT_EDITOR_PROGRAM \).*@\1"vi"@' lib/config.h
Any reason not to do this in LFS?
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-
This command
sed -i -e '/!done/i/ longArg = NULL;' popt/popt.c
create
/ longArg = NULL;
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 06/07/2011 05:16 AM, LANOUX Bertrand wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have noticed the "unknown HZ value" message still appears at boot time and
> under some unpredictable circumstances when running the ps command, even
> after applying the procps-3.2.8-fix_HZ_errors-1.patch (I currently use a SMP,
> 2
Hello,
Now that pcre is part of the base LFS, I think you need to take into
consideration how you will handle the conflict with the libc namespace, namely
some of the functions declared in regex.h and their associated symbols in
libc.so.6
The readme file (http://www.pcre.org/readme.txt) has th
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:59:56 -0700
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> poptGetNextOption, after it invokes the callback for
> --define-variable=a=b (the operation of which sets the longArg local
> variable), does not reset longArg to NULL. So on the next time through
> its loop (after invoking the --define-v
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Doing some debugging, I'm making some progress. I made some debug
>> printouts and in the first case got:
>>
>>required_pkgconfig_version 999.999
>>
>> but in the second
>>
>>required_pkgconfig_version a=b
>>
>> (which for some reason returns a
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Doing some debugging, I'm making some progress. I made some debug
> printouts and in the first case got:
>
>required_pkgconfig_version 999.999
>
> but in the second
>
>required_pkgconfig_version a=b
>
> (which for some reason returns a positive number for
> compar
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Eek, 1 test known to fail means that popt is not working as expected,
>> and therefore some pkg-config functionality is broken. If you don't
>> want to include popt in the base system, then I think it's better to
>> track down what is broken in the bu
xinglp wrote:
> chapter 6.13
>
> cp -v ../binutils-2.21.1a/include/libiberty.h /usr/include
> -->
> cp -v ../binutils-2.21.1/include/libiberty.h /usr/include
Fixed in svn. Thanks for the heads up.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
chapter 6.13
cp -v ../binutils-2.21.1a/include/libiberty.h /usr/include
-->
cp -v ../binutils-2.21.1/include/libiberty.h /usr/include
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
11 matches
Mail list logo