Guys,
it seems to make sense to move this to Freenode as they have a large
infrastructure that is quite stable, they have
hosted parts of the project before, I'm still listed as a project contact on
Freenode so it would take almost no time
and effort to set up the channels the same, re-add the
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
>> This was just to inform.
>> You could require what you desire.
>>
>> For me, less requirement is better so we will adapt our scripts.
>> I do not imagine I could make Ubuntu change something just to let IP
Well, if you or the OP can provide definitive examples of where the
book is inconsistent then I will gladly reword it. As it is, the
introduction sections of each chapter are the only places where I am
aware we inform you of what user you should be, and it is assumed that
one reads that in
r3al1tych3ck wrote:
Sorry Bruce. Not embarrassed here. It took almost half an hour to
explain it in irc before because the hot headed people would not listen.
Eventually they got it but are still to smug to do anything about it.
SURE. I, you, or anyone can point to any ONE place in the book
Jim Gifford wrote:
This is been a topic of many different discussions. A lot of people
have tried to convince both sides, but nothing has ever been settled.
It needs to be settled before this rift between projects gets any bigger.
We in CLFS have our udev rules. LFS has their udev rules. B
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
I'm really dissapointed that this thread has turned into a "support"
thread for certain products and arguments over specifics.
The whole point of this thread was to discuss the options and directions
of the whole projects not answer spe
There's nothing at all wrong with the mailing list. It's just the
inherent nature of a project that is spread out among group of
volunteers that don't always have time to discuss properly - the medium
used is to discuss isn't to blame. In fact, it's good that you brought
this up here becaus
steve crosby wrote:
On 5/1/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a setup. The sticking point would be programs that include linux/.h
or asm/.h, if there are any. And it sounds like there are glibc
alternatives to all of those headers anyway, so it would be the program
that's broken.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with
jim's script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
I thought iptables required the "raw" kernel source anyway?
Regardless, it's definitely one of the few Linux-specific programs.
Hi all,
First of all, I have sent this mail to all lists, but I'd request that
all responses happen on LFS-DEV to keep this thread (assuming it gets
response) together and followable.
Reading through threads in general there appears to be a little
seperation and difference of opinion on a fe
Joe Ciccone wrote:
I put this page together with the users and groups from LFS and BLFS.
The only addition I made to this page is a users groups with a gid of
100. Anyone that wants to set something in stone, this would be a good
place to start. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jciccone/users.ht
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
This is a request for donations.
The LFS server is creaking along poorly. It is a 750MHz/512MB Ram/2 x
9G SCSI system. It frequently has high load factors and out of memory
problems.
Right now, Gerard is funding the server hosting fees from the meager
PayPal donations he re
Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
Hi All,
as for educational purpose I think
I would be good to use an original
kernel and then apply the header script.
This shows that there is some magic
around that stuff.
Releasing "only" a package is only
useful for advanced users I think.
regards Bernd
Surly that
Jim Gifford wrote:
Another option here is to use the headers package I've been working with
a lot of people. It compiles a base LFS and CLFS with no issues at
all.http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/linux-headers-2.6.16.2.tar.bz2, or roll
your own by using http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers.
For
Archaic wrote:
I would like to hear from Jim and everyone working on the header project
regarding this possibility:
Find the headers that llh currently lacks that glibc-2.3.6 and
linux-2.6.16.x both support and patch them into llh. The only thing that
comes to mind is inotify support. Headers t
Archaic wrote:
Let me answer that with an example. gcc-4.0.x and mysql 5.0.{16,18,19}
produce problems.
I'd be interested in seeing the problems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --prefix=/usr
--libexecdir=/u
Andrew Benton wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
be behind the power curve. We don't want to get multiple revisions
behind on these.
And there's the kernel headers issue to sort out too.
Andy
The kernel headers are not really
The kernel is about to release 2.6.16 (they have been on 2.6.16-rc5 for
about two weeks now) so we are quite a bit behind there.
Yes, but any upgrade to the kernel will require a newer version of udev
which is why the udev_update branch was created.
If your considering the new 2.6.16 ke
Another very minor point is trying to find a way to rip out all the
__KERNEL__ portions
That's what the "unifdef" tool in FreeBSD does. It also works in Linux.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ajw/public/dist/unifdef-1.0.tar.gz
Note: Debian uses a CVS version for some reason, need to investigate.
Not
Jim Gifford wrote:
A lot of you may have noticed the LLH kernel headers have not been
updated as promised. With that in mind, I decided to do some tests over
the past few days building LFS and CLFS with raw kernel headers.
Unfortunately the raw kernel headers are not enough, but with minor
mod
Dominic Ringuet wrote:
Simply reporting so nobody else wastes time on this. May be it could be
added to the FAQ that describes this problem.
if '/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/specs' exists on the host system, the
binaries compiled in chapter 5, even with the specs patch properly
applied in g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chaps,
can we put a little prespective on this.
Its a dev-list, a development process has been put forward to the list
for fun/evaluation/testing/feedback, this is not in lfs or
cross-lfsyet, Matts done work on this also which I tested in the
ea
All,
I recently updated the cross-lfs book to remove reference to the news
servers, I left the fact in that they used to exist and no longer do to
make it clear they where shut down intentionally.
can I suggest that other project devs to the same in their books
Matt
--
http://linuxfromscrat
Nice to see you back and %150 fully up to speed,
the latest Livecd is pretty nice, and the fact that your managing your
time better (as this mail shows), means you'll probably be around for
longer.
Nice to see your keeping things in balance and not afraid to give a few
things up
Nice !
Ma
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
And what is your experience with this ?
Do you find that inotify works/is picked up by dovecot
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello guys,
I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and late
Bernd Feldmeier wrote:
Hi to all,
sorry but as I know this release is bug fix release,
but this stuff has nothing to do with the
of any glibc/kernel stable versions. I think we should
upgrade to these stable versions before releasing ...
so we should use latest versions e.g. binutils 2.16.1 +
Kev Buckley wrote:
Ah, yes. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything LFS.
I personally think it's more than just building a minimal working
system, and I think there are others that will agree with me there. That
should be shown by the fact that there are and continue to be
Ah, yes. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything LFS.
I personally think it's more than just building a minimal working
system, and I think there are others that will agree with me there. That
should be shown by the fact that there are and continue to be such
packages as
Ag Hatzim wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:32:59PM -0500:
Snip
I think we really should look at including it sometime in the future,
whether it starts with a hint or a separate branch or whatever.
Ok lets give an end to these eternals debates (although i
Matt Darcy wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
Ag Hatzim wrote:
I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to
rebuild
wget from blfs,for those who would like support for encrypted
http,which
requires openssl) and maybe a text browser e.g lynx,into the book.
+1 for wget
Andrew Benton wrote:
Ag Hatzim wrote:
I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to
rebuild
wget from blfs,for those who would like support for encrypted http,which
requires openssl) and maybe a text browser e.g lynx,into the book.
+1 for wget
Andy
pussy
--
http://li
Ag Hatzim wrote:
Matthew Burgess([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:44:29PM +:
Hi Matthew.
If anyone wants any other features included now's the time to get those
requests in.
I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild
wget from blfs,for those who
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
LFS works as it is, it calls out at the start of the book what it
will build, I don't see a need to move this to include more tools
like a propritary package managment system.
If there's one thing MSB's hint *isn't*, it&
Gueven Bay wrote:
Hi dear LFS devs,
I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev.
Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write)
the book but now I want to write some words here.
I can understand that some of you are "not amused" of beginners
who want to
Archaic wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 09:56:05PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
IOW, I think the level of the book is just right.
Please, Bruce, do not take offense at this, but the only posts I've seen
from you in lfs-support this year are 2 in August and they were both
release announcem
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 11/24/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So. I had been thinking it would be nice if LFS and BLFS adopted (some
of) this approach. Again, I fully recognize that this is new ground in a
way and that many people will think, "it is a hint and should stay a
hi
Are there really enough distros that won't build lfs (other than the
ones that are just too old and ones that don't meet other basic
criteria) to justify creating a such a list? We already have FAQ
entries for a couple of problematic distros...just add more to the FAQ
as needed...
Very f
Just in case anyone is interested, I've put the coddled HTML, as it
was a few days ago, here:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/~kevin/LFS-SVN-051107-kmb.html
Basically, as rendered at my end, commands from LFS that I no longer
needed to follow are tagged with a RED background to the
parts and command
Hi all,
I believe this has been discussed before, but after reading a post on
lfs-chat recently and some pretty frustring issues within the support
IRC channels, I thought I'd post this open question.
Should there be an "unsupported distro" page in the book.
eg: the slamd64 distro is totally
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Here's what's bugging me about this whole hardcoding of UIDS.
Here is the page from the BLFS book
Name UG
exim31 31
postfix 32 32
postdrop33
sendmail 34
mail34
I think we all agre
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
uncompressing a file with bzip2 compression using tar 1.15.1 built in
/tools failed for me.
From what you guys have both said, I'm assuming you expected it to
add the j option on its own ?
For tar >= 1.15.x all you should need
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
However the missing j option for untaring needs updating.
Again, we're using the tar in /tools at this time which we know is
tar-1.15.1. Try that version on a tar.bz2 or tar.gz without the -j or
-z and see what happens. ;)
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Domingo, 20 de Noviembre de 2005 15:01, Matt Darcy escribió:
should be
tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on
platforms.
Not. When issuing that command the tar
all,
Chapter 6.50 module init-tools-3.1
the command
tar -xvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
should be
tar jxvf ../module-init-tools-testsuite-3.1.tar.bz2 --strip-path=1
The strip option is also questionable on certain versions of tar on platforms.
Matt
--
h
John Miller wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
William Zhou wrote:
I have been using LFS for more than a year's time and it is great.
One of my friend started LFS several days ago and got an error when
adjusting the toolchain( 5.7 ). The problem was that the gcc specs path
was pointed to the host'
Andrew Benton wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
Guys,
could someone explain the driver behind all the -v flags on pretty
much every command within the LFS dev/testing releases.
every command now seems ot have -v output.
mkdir/chmod/chown etc etc.
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev
Guys,
could someone explain the driver behind all the -v flags on pretty much
every command within the LFS dev/testing releases.
every command now seems ot have -v output.
mkdir/chmod/chown etc etc.
Matt
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
Frans Verstegen wrote:
When following the "Version 7.0-cross-lfs-20050926-Sparc64" I get the
following error in configuring glibc in "5.8.1. Installation of Glibc"
(...)
checking for long double... no
checking size of long double... 0
running configure fragment for sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/elf
Frans Verstegen wrote:
Hello everyone
The following link is broken in the cross-sparc64 and
cross-sparc64-multilib books
Glibc TLS Patch - 4 KB:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc/glibc-20050919-sparc64_tls-1.patch
Frans
_
Jim Gifford wrote:
One of things I've been mulling over is maybe have cross-lfs just
build the toolchains, but the rest of the stuff, currently the
temp-system and final-system of Cross-LFS, could be the future LFS
book that supports multiple architectures.
I'll put my comments in now t
Hi all,
There appears to be a problem with the cross-build gcc4 project. From
dicussions on this it appears to be a compatability issue with gcc4
which displays its self on different platforms in different ways.
I have been working on the x86 to x86_64 multi-lib version of this problem.
The
Dex wrote:
Went pretty smoothly and completed in less than 24 hours despite recompiling
gcc a number of times to play with different C/CXX flag settings. No
matter what
I tried I got errors on the math tests and ended up with
-march=ahtIon-xp -O2
-pipe.
I did note that a couple of packages were
53 matches
Mail list logo
