On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:49:07 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The main differences (I'll outline all of them shortly) are the
> pre-adjusting of gcc in pass 1 along with the use of sysroot and newlib.
I'm so far out of touch I don't have the energy to shoot this down.
For the record, I don't agre
On 2/27/12 11:31 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 2/27/12 11:10 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ms_KKFndiCkJ:www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf+linux+abi+64-bit+x86&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShHjrdWF0azVfQCEu-s8nYZAzhXt5X9e2WZeIC7fqrwtyLFFUztVtpzfZo3ucJZB
On 2/27/12 11:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> I'd like to commit this to trunk, but I want to hear opinions first.
>
> Whoa. We've released lfs-7.1-rc1 and need to keep svn in sync until the
> 7.1 release is made.
Yeah, this can wait until after whenever the release happen
On 2/27/12 11:10 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ms_KKFndiCkJ:www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf+linux+abi+64-bit+x86&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShHjrdWF0azVfQCEu-s8nYZAzhXt5X9e2WZeIC7fqrwtyLFFUztVtpzfZo3ucJZB49pJHfDqqZL90ngzTG4BBheeJgy22Dj8RY9P0AjWbbKcXPz
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I'd like to commit this to trunk, but I want to hear opinions first.
Whoa. We've released lfs-7.1-rc1 and need to keep svn in sync until the
7.1 release is made.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 5. Since we don't support multilib, remove all toolchain uses of
> lib64. No need for those symlinks any more. Everything goes to lib.
I don't think this is a good idea.
The 64-bit x86 SysV ABI *REQUIRES* /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 to be the
runtime linker path. (This
I've revised a local copy of the latest book to include some build
adjustments. The original concept was suggested on this list a couple
years ago by Ryan Oliver. I've been using it and adjusting it for the
past couple of years. It's how LightCube OS was bootstrapped.
The main differences (I'll ou
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:43:11 -0600
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to remove it from my working copy of the book and make a
>>> test run to see if not having it runs into any problems.
>>>
>>> I do want to leave it in for 7.1 just because its a
Qrux wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Qrux wrote:
>>> When all is said and done, I'm talking about two tiny little
"packages" (bridge-utils and ethtool) that amount to probably 2
executables that control and expose kernel features
On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Qrux wrote:
>>
>> When all is said and done, I'm talking about two tiny little "packages"
>> (bridge-utils and ethtool) that amount to probably 2 executables that
>> control and expose kernel features very
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Qrux wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> Qrux wrote:
>>> For 7.2 & beyond...
>>>
>>> Bridge-utils is not dissimilar from udev, in that it's a userspace
>>> tool for a kernel. And, it's certainly no less optional than
>>> inettools.
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:43:11 -0600
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I'm going to remove it from my working copy of the book and make a test
>> run to see if not having it runs into any problems.
>>
>> I do want to leave it in for 7.1 just because its a minor issue and we
>> don'
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:43:11 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm going to remove it from my working copy of the book and make a test
> run to see if not having it runs into any problems.
>
> I do want to leave it in for 7.1 just because its a minor issue and we
> don't have enough time to test it t
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dubbs"
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Util-linux arch command
> Matt Burgess wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:33 +0100, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> >
> >> Each configure run arch at 2 d
--- Em seg, 27/2/12, Andrew Benton escreveu:
> De: Andrew Benton
> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gnucash brokenness
> Para: blfs-...@linuxfromscratch.org
> Data: Segunda-feira, 27 de Fevereiro de 2012, 14:27
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:53:42 -0800
> (PST)
> Fernando de Oliveira
> wrote:
>
> > It is attac
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:33 +0100, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
>> Each configure run arch at 2 different path and look to satisfy from
>> 'unknow' answer
>> /bin/arch = `(/bin/arch) 2>/dev/null || echo
>> unknown`
>> /usr/bin/arch -k = `(/usr/bin
On 2012-02-27 07:41, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:33 +0100, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
>> Each configure run arch at 2 different path and look to satisfy from
>> 'unknow' answer
>> /bin/arch = `(/bin/arch) 2>/dev/null ||
>> echo
>> unknown`
>> /usr/bin/ar
17 matches
Mail list logo
