On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>
> It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
> no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
Indeed, Fedora quite some time ago stopped shipping libtool .la files
because of how frequently they
Alice Wonder wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>
>>
>> It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
>> no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
>
> Indeed, Fedora quite some time ago stopped shipping libtool .la files
> be
Le 02/03/2014 02:35, akhiezer a écrit :
>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 18:17:42 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc pass 1/2 instructions re mpfr/gmp/mpc.
>>
>> akhiezer wrote:
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:38 -0600
From: Bruce Dubbs
>>>
Em 02-03-2014 05:29, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Alice Wonder wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
>>> no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
>>
>> Indeed, Fedora quite s
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:06:12 +0100
> From: "Armin K."
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
.
.
>
> I've just started sendmail. Actually I'm most interested in getting the
> slackware issue settled for LFS. That
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:33:55 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
> Armin K. wrote:
> > On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
>
> Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every "sane" distro
>
> >> It's not
On 03/02/2014 09:29 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Alice Wonder wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
>>> no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
>>
>> Indeed, Fedora quite s
On 03/02/2014 08:55 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Armin K. wrote:
>>> On 2.3.2014 2:55, akhiezer wrote:
>>
>> Why should we care when it's a distribution issue? Every "sane" distro
>>
It's not a 'distribution issue': you're wrong.
>>
>>> It is. Package ships *.la file that
On 03/02/2014 01:38 PM, akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:06:12 +0100
>> From: "Armin K."
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>>
> .
> .
>>
>> I've just started sendmail. Actually I'm most interested in getting the
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:55:54 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
.
.
> I think I have the test for version-check.sh:
>
> for lib in lib{gmp,mpfr,mpc}.so; do
>echo $lib: $(if find /usr/lib* -name $
Why is the installation of the headers in the book like this
make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest headers_install
cp -rv dest/include/* /tools/include
instead of
make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/tools/include headers_install
??
Would the latter be "just the same" or am I missing something here?
--
http://linux
Am Sonntag, den 02.03.2014, 08:36 -0500 schrieb baho utot:
> Why is the installation of the headers in the book like this
>
> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest headers_install
> cp -rv dest/include/* /tools/include
>
> instead of
>
> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/tools/include headers_install
if at all, than
On 03/02/2014 09:22 AM, thomas wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 02.03.2014, 08:36 -0500 schrieb baho utot:
>> Why is the installation of the headers in the book like this
>>
>> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest headers_install
>> cp -rv dest/include/* /tools/include
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:55:54 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
.
.
> I think I have the test for version-check.sh:
>
> for lib in lib{gmp,mpfr,mpc}.so; do
>echo $lib: $(if find /usr/lib* -name $
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:11:50 +0100
> From: Pierre Labastie
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc pass 1/2 instructions re mpfr/gmp/mpc.
>
.
.
>
> But useless!!!
>
Thanks for the reminder and re-pointing to .la ;] .
> lib{gmp,mpfr,mpc}.so
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:22 AM, thomas wrote:
> If I remember right, at least in previous versions of the kernel
> sources
> the target directory had been cleared before the headers were written.
> That would be no good for the /tools/include dir but meaningless for
> the
> newly created "dest" d
Armin K. wrote:
> On 03/02/2014 09:29 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Alice Wonder wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 03:06 +0100, Armin K. wrote:
>>>
It is. Package ships *.la file that depends on another *.la file which
no package ships that the former one depends on. Packaging error.
>>>
After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
requirements page in svn:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
I considered an erratum, but we really don't want to be put in the
position of having to bring it forward for each release.
Wha
Armin K. wrote:
> No matter what you say, if a package A installs a file X.Y that requires
> file Z.Y and package A doesn't either:
>
> a) pull automatically the package (depend on) that contains file Z.Y
> b)ships that file itself
>
> the packaging is broken.
Then BLFS's and LFS's "packaging"
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
> requirements page in svn:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
Looks reasonable to me, unless we want to take lib64 / lib32 into account,
rather than just lib. I'd
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
>> requirements page in svn:
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
>
> Looks reasonable to me, unless we want to take lib64 / lib32 into accou
On 03/02/2014 08:05 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> No matter what you say, if a package A installs a file X.Y that requires
>> file Z.Y and package A doesn't either:
>>
>> a) pull automatically the package (depend on) that contains file Z.Y
>> b)ships that file itself
>>
>> the pack
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
>>> requirements page in svn:
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html
>>
>> Looks reasonable to me, unless we want to ta
On 03/02/2014 10:13 AM, William Harrington wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:22 AM, thomas wrote:
>
>> If I remember right, at least in previous versions of the kernel
>> sources
>> the target directory had been cleared before the headers were written.
>> That would be no good for the /tools/include d
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
> requirements page in svn:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/developmen
On 02/03/2014 22:00, akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>>
>> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
>> requirements page in svn:
>>
>> http:
akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>>
>> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
>> requirements page in svn:
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:27:05 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>
> >> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
> >> requirements page in svn:
> >>
> >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view
Le 02/03/2014 21:00, akhiezer a écrit :
>> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:36:34 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Are we ready for LFS-7.5?
>>
>> After a fairly extensive discussion, I've update the host system
>> requirements page in svn:
>>
>> ht
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS Version 7.5.
This release includes numerous changes to LFS-7.4 (including updates to
Linux-3.13.3, GCC-4.8.2, Glibc-2.19, binutils-2.24) and security fixes.
It also includes editorial work on the explanatory material thro
Ken, You mentioned a problem with linux-3.13.5. Can you explain your
issues with that version?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
I am pleased to announce the first stable release of the Linux From
Scratch book that is using systemd as the init system.
For a quick summary about differences between this and the official LFS
book see the first release candidate announcement[1].
The book can be read online[2] or downloaded[3]
On 3/2/2014 4:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
> LFS Version 7.5.
> [snip]
I would like to say that it pleases me that the LFS community is as
active as it is, and congratulations on another release of this fine
product. LFS is as a
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:47:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken, You mentioned a problem with linux-3.13.5. Can you explain your
> issues with that version?
>
>-- Bruce
Ah! I've just put a short summary in my reply to you re libexecdir
on blfs-dev. Here's a MUCH fuller one:
I built
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:47:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken, You mentioned a problem with linux-3.13.5. Can you explain your
>> issues with that version?
>>
>> -- Bruce
>
> Ah! I've just put a short summary in my reply to you re libexecdir
> on blfs-dev. Here's
Ken Moffat wrote:
> When I woke up in the
> morning, I was surprised to find that my OpenJDK script was still running
> rm -rf for the source directory, and had been doing so for more than 5
> hours (both wall-clock time and CPU time), and was now at 99%-100% of one
> CPU, according to top.
...Odd
36 matches
Mail list logo
