Lemon Lime wrote:
> I think the "-C src" in the instructions for sysvinit is not needed:
>
> pkg:~/build/sysvinit-2.88dsf$ cat Makefile
> all install clean distclean:
> $(MAKE) -C src $@
>
> I already built it a few times with just "make" and "make install" and
> it worked.
You're right.
I think the "-C src" in the instructions for sysvinit is not needed:
pkg:~/build/sysvinit-2.88dsf$ cat Makefile
all install clean distclean:
$(MAKE) -C src $@
I already built it a few times with just "make" and "make install" and
it worked.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
On Mar 4, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 3/1/12 4:27 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> And because of the pre-adjusting there's even less chance to bring in
>> something from the host system. The limits.h file is an example. The
>> first pass of GCC doesn't install a full-featured limi
On Mar 4, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Qrux wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of any actual vulnerabilities in LFS-proper (either
>> 7.0 or 7.1)?
>
> If we knew/know of any specific vulnerabilities, we'd address them.
Is this necessarily the case?
Aren't there issues that LFS doesn't ha
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:00:38 -0600
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> My proposal is to just skip 'arch' completely as I do not believe it is
>> not used anywhere in LFS/BLFS.
>
> It is used in several places in BLFS (eg the pages for Liba52, nss and
> nspr), but I'm sure uname -m
On Mar 4, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 12:32:32AM -0800, Qrux wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know of any actual vulnerabilities in LFS-proper (either 7.0 or
>> 7.1)?
>>
> The most recent perl vulnerability came to light after 7.0 was
> released, and the patch to fix
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:00:38 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> My proposal is to just skip 'arch' completely as I do not believe it is
> not used anywhere in LFS/BLFS.
It is used in several places in BLFS (eg the pages for Liba52, nss and
nspr), but I'm sure uname -m will work just as well.
Andy
--
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> My proposal is to just skip 'arch' completely as I do not believe it is
>> not used anywhere in LFS/BLFS.
>
> Ah yes, so it is. Do you mind if I make that change as part of #3002?
Not at all.
-- Bruce
--
http
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:00 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> My proposal is to just skip 'arch' completely as I do not believe it is
> not used anywhere in LFS/BLFS.
Ah yes, so it is. Do you mind if I make that change as part of #3002?
Ta,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lf
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 21:06 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
>
>
>> That led me to wonder why we bother passing the other '--enable' options
>> (partx, arch and write). For reference, Bruce brought up 'arch' in
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2012-February/06
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:06:11 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm tackling #3002 (upgrading Util-Linux to 2.21). Bruce suggested the
> use of '--enable-new-mount' so that we will use the new libmount based
> version of 'mount'. It's marked as EXPERIMENTAL in configure's help,
> but I'm happ
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 21:06 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> That led me to wonder why we bother passing the other '--enable' options
> (partx, arch and write). For reference, Bruce brought up 'arch' in
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2012-February/065811.html
> and partx/write
Hi,
I'm tackling #3002 (upgrading Util-Linux to 2.21). Bruce suggested the
use of '--enable-new-mount' so that we will use the new libmount based
version of 'mount'. It's marked as EXPERIMENTAL in configure's help,
but I'm happy enough to put it in as Util-Linux is now well maintained
and I full
On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 23:49 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> Suggested patch attached.
Applied in r9762.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:57:01 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Yeah, as I've read more about it it seems like the culprit may be
> libtool, so effectively gcc's build system. What the exact trigger is
> that makes it different on various systems still isn't clear.
>
> So I'll concede that the pat
On 3/5/12 11:56 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Sorry for being slow to respond, I've been busy :)
> I remember reading that gcc bug last year when I first hit the problem.
> I spent some time trying to implement the solutions proposed there but
> none of them worked. Reading through it again now I noti
Andrew Benton wrote:
> I only removed packages that I knew weren't coming back and I don't
> think any of them were edited less than a year ago. The packages I've
> removed from the book today are just commented out to make it easier to
> revert if needed.
Exactly the right approach IMO.
-- B
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:33:46 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > Until you physically removed some
> > things this weekend, my impression was that the xml for old packages
> > always remained in the book, but the packages were commented in
> > general.ent and in whichever xml file
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:41:17 +0100
Ragnar Thomsen wrote:
>
> I would like to add the wicd package to BLFS.
>
> For those of you who do not know it, it is a network connection manager,
> similar to NetworkManager but not as feature rich, and written in python.
>
> It can manage wired and wire
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:37:20 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The patch is good to have as a workaround, but I'd like to find out what
> the issue is that's causing this. I fear it's either a problem with your
> host's compiler or a bug in the GCC build system. Check out:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
20 matches
Mail list logo
