The discussion is about the feasibility of removing perl from *LFS* - all of
the packages you listed except GCC are outside of LFS
Sent from my iThingy
On 6/06/2012, at 8:10, g@free.fr wrote:
>
>
> - Mail original -
>> De: "Jeremy Huntwork"
>> À: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
>>
p://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
f dev to real root mount point)
exec switch_root $rootdev /mnt/root /sbin/init (atomic move of real
root to / and exec /sbin/init as pid 1)
No changes should be needed to bootscripts
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>>> 2. Providing an emergency shell in the event of failure to mount root
>>> filesystem
>
> That's reasonable too, however I never recall needing that capability.
>
> The times I
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 7:33 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> 3. Populate /dev using busybox cutdown version of udev (mdev)
>
>
> Is there a benefit to mdev over just using tmpdevfs?
>
> I say that as a current use
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
>
> 1. Education ;)
> 2. Providing an emergency shell in the event of failure to mount root
> filesystem
>
3. (not relevant to LFS) Auto-detecting which device the root is on,
when the boot device is portable\non-persistent
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> I've been experimenting with initramfs recently (I used to use initrd
>> for my cdrom bootable lfs firewall).
>>
>> It's relatively straightforward. I understand dracut may a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
cut&pasto
${INITPRG:="/sbin/init"}
should be
: ${INITPRG:="/sbin/init"}
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: S
grub.cfg after linux line
initrd/boot/initramfs.cpio.bz2
Should make a recommendation to leave initramfs source in place for
future updates\changes, or instructions on how to extract from cpio
archive. Note that changes to INITRAMFS need only to replace cpio file
in
/boot, kernel recompile not needed.
@
FIXME: should note there is an option to build cpio into kernel? may
complicate issue? extraction is painful using kernel image, and
require kernel recompile for any changes
@
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> Not *required* but systemd will issue a warning on boot if /etc/mtab
>> is not a symlink to /proc/mounts
>
>
> I'm pretty sure this is act
opers who think they should determine user
administration policy in code...
Hint: because you think this is the way it should be done does not
automatically make you right, nor make anyone who does it differently
wrong
Now I get to write\maintain a patch to silence your silliness in
deciding
and systemd have circular build dependencies, and
the recommended build method is (from the README)
dbus (without systemd support)
systemd
dbus (with systemd support)
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Uns
libpng-1.5, not libpng_1.5. It's not called libpng_1.5 so why should
> the patch be called libpng_1.5?
>
> Andy
thunderbird-9.0.1-fix_for_libpng-1.5-1.patch?
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
eason
> to source the files in every single sub-shell. BTW, Dan's
> initd-tools has moved. He is currently hosting them in his home
> directory on freedesktop.org.
Do you have the link to initd-tools. I've searched all morning and
can't find anything. I'm thinking of trying the LSB scripts on my next
build now that linux=2.6.38 is out.
--
Steve Jones
s...@slohj.org
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
x27;t using
a content management system (Drupal, Joomla, ...).
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
stitution: line 60: syntax error near unexpected token `)'
bash: command substitution: line 60: `readelf -l /bin/sh | sed -n
's...@.*interpret.*/tools\(.*\)]...@\1@p')'
Thanks,
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.
to check if your *host* system has a
modified e2fsprogs, which means that when you create your LFS
partition using that modified software you may run into problems when
in chroot, as we won't have those same modifications with the LFS
installation of e2fsprogs. As long as you don't have *mor
rks due to the shared libs being
in a standard location (/usr/lib, etc), and the linker able to find
them using normal paths.
So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
prefer.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
_PATH takes care of the location of
gmp\mpfr)
whether or not this is "better" is up to the editors, although it
might simplify jhalfs building to have the libraries as seperate apps
currently up to gawk install in Chapter 5, no new issues to report
that are not already noted.
--
--
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Steve Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steve Crosby wrote:
>>
>>> FYI: building them in the tools directory is going to be problematic.
>>&
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> FYI: building them in the tools directory is going to be problematic.
>> During the stage 1 build of gcc, the make system is unable to locate
>> the libmpfr.so.1 li
ethod of adding the needed libraries
to the host toolset. At some point this will need to be addressed, if
nothing else for sucessful building from the LFS6.3 LiveCD, which
doesn't have these libraries.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
st yesterday completed a LFS Live
CD 6.3 build into my new VMWare instance, I'm keen to test the latest
SVN build over the next few days.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
server at the end, all built from
source.
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
roc/self/fd/0 -> /dev/pts/0
root:~# ls -l /dev/pts/0
crw--w 1 root tty 136, 0 2007-08-02 14:30 /dev/pts/0
so the nobody user won't be able to read these devices. Not sure how
you would work around that, unless you use login instead of su to
start the nobody user doing the testing (wh
atest 6.3 sources from which to
build the real LFS box. While it's nice for the two to be in the same
ballpark, there's nothing that says the LiveCD needs to be running 6.3,
just that it should be sufficient to build 6.3.
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinf
t" in the kernel, and
then userspace can use that to communicate to a kernel module - this
can be bi-directional and multi-cast too, so you can hang a userspace
process on a netlink socket and receive output from the kernel module
- useful for accounting, audting, etc.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
h
ight like to hear about that bit of news.
>
Very cool news. It's been hard to judge the popularity of LFS, everyone
I know that's ever heard of it knows about it from me telling them.
Though it does appear on the Linux Distro timeline at:
http://kde-files.org/CONTENT/content-files/44
that, the full source
> to is at
>
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp-full-20070228.tgz?download
>
> -- Bruce
>
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
>
>
cat $file >> /etc/udev/rules.d/$dest
rm -f $file
done
# Re-trigger the failed uevents in hope they will succeed now
/sbin/udevtrigger --retry-failed
-
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
termine why it was 0622
in MAKEDEV tho ;)
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
t environment, in a bash shell, so use of bash
specific commands is certainly valid. If you have chosen to not
install bash, then your expected to also know what impact such
deviation will have.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
der E. Patrakov
you can either remove the modprobe rules from the rules directory, or
link /sbin/modprobe to /bin/true - I have the same issue with a
firewall build using no modules, and just remove the module based
ruleset.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
e
to change killproc at all.
Without having the bootscripts handy, i think it the syntax is
killproc -p pidfile application
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
sn't watching? Time Limits
on a volunteer project run by mailing list and IRC conversations?
Voting? Democracy? Surely the benign dictatorship model we had prior
to this radical political change was working okay?
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
ram to iptables -
version 1.24 of ulog is used in my setup, however a v2.0beta is being
developed by the netfilter team.
steve:/usr/src# cat asm-headers
asm/types.h
steve:/usr/src# cat linux-headers
linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_ULOG.h
linux/netlink.h
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscrat
rs and linux-headers attached. Note that the "find"
command in the header_list script needed altering to escape the
filenames, or it reports an error about paths preceeding options.
i.e "find * -name \*.c" and "find * -name \*.h"
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
asm-headers
Desc
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve,
I just added a headers_list script that will look at the sources and
pull all the headers and put them into a report. Let's run that and
compare what I have in the script now to see what's missing.
http://ftp.j
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, got those changes in. Thanx for the reports Steve, this is what I need.
no worries - with those changes (dccp.h, netfilter.h) iptables (and
ulog) compile fine. Diff attached for headers script for reference
diff -Naur headers.s
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve, I think I got it covered in the 00.52, I'll be posting it shortly.
still no joy
linux/dccp.h missing - I added that, and then this occurs
extensions/libipt_connmark.c: In function 'init':
extensions/libipt
On 5/4/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
steve crosby wrote:
> My intent was to identify that one of the options provided in the
> thread (Jim's work with the linux headers) has problems, as it's
> currently not working with certain applications outside of LFS.
On 5/4/06, Matt Darcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
On 5/3/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 05:10:17PM +1200, steve crosby wrote:
>
> from tty.h
>
> #define MAX_NR_USER_CONSOLES 63 /* must be root to allocate above this */
Would that be
#define MAX_NR_CONSOLES 63 /* serial lines start at 64 */
nearly that many.
I found it once, but forget where. It was a c file in the kernel. A
#DEFINE, IIRC.
from tty.h
#define MAX_NR_USER_CONSOLES 63 /* must be root to allocate above this */
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.
it's Linux-specific.)
iptables is one such application - currently non functional with jim's
script created headers, but have yet to identify why.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
On 3/19/06, Andrew Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve crosby wrote:
> > The program is built, but not installed (or needed later) - just run
> > it from the current directory (e.g. instead of /sbin/udevstart use
> > ./udevstart)
>
> No, there's no nee
t;
> But, in udev-087, udevstart isn't installed anymore.
>
> So, now what?
>
The program is built, but not installed (or needed later) - just run
it from the current directory (e.g. instead of /sbin/udevstart use
./udevstart)
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxf
for the easiest approach, but
I can certainly do it manually.
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
with
what they learned I did my job. I got positive evaluations at the end.
People just totally ignore prereqs...
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
gured out, too. Ah well, it happens, I
> guess.
>
Don't abandon it ;) Others are interested in initramfs setup for
things like booting from CD, embedded systems, etc - it's actually
easier to maintain an initramfs than an initrd, since the kernel will
build it for you without mes
m+Scratch&target_milestone=6.1.1
shows two remaining bugs.
The Glibc 2.3.4 patch (which solves the ssh issue) doesn't seem to be listed
among
the bugs - has it been included anyway?
Thanks
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Un
urity vulneribilities in the
6.1 book as shown in the errata,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/stable/, I think a 6.1.1 book
with all these items fixed would be a great help. The stable book
doesn't appear so 'stable' when you look at all of these bugs.
Comments?
--
JH
ouldn't require NEARLY as much testing/review as what is required to make
a new stable release out of what is in 6.1 DEV.
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Steve Prior wrote:
Yes, my point exactly. If the bug is in LFS then *that* should be fixed
and released, and in turn, the LiveCD can follow suit.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Steve.
--
JH
My concern at the moment is a practical one. I have a machine I really
ltiple programs, but either there's a bug in
ssh or at least the BLFS instructions for ssh might need to change.
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
d from Gerard to sort out last time.
PEOPLE! For the sake of the Project, the community, and the human race:
GET YOUR FREAKING ACT TOGETHER!!!
Steve
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 9/14/05, steve crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note also that editing the default ruleset supplied by LFS is not
> necessary - multiple rules files are perfectly acceptable, as long as
> the rules of precedence are considered.
Replying to myself ;)
Does it make sense to
nerate a udev rules file,
rather than the nodes themselves? Possibly allow a "prompt" option to
makedev which asks what nodes you want, and a makedev LFS\BLFS so the
actual node rules can be maintained by the appropriate development
teams - just a thought.
Note also that editing the defaul
the CD. This has happened on both my
Some older CDROM drives don't fully support the standards - as such,
they ignore the "lock" command (amongst other more important ones!)
Use http://cdctl.sourceforge.net/ and see if that can lock the drive
door - if not, it's a firmware thing (
is useful to leave libc.6.so as executable so you can
run the library to get the version details.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 8/16/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve crosby wrote:
>
> > The patch needs a proper LFS header applied and sending upstream
> > (hint, hint, nudge, nudge). Tested here on udev-067 without issue.
>
> Hmm, this is the second patch you
earer
Why do we need to know? we can simply do as I posted earlier, and sed
the dumpspecs stream, then input the results directly to the specs
with with -specs= - let gcc handle updating the actual file
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.
pecs=tempfile
rm tempfile
Chapter 6
gcc -dumpspecs | sed -e 's@ /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2@
/lib/[EMAIL PROTECTED]' -e '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/usr/lib/@g'
> tempfile
gcc -specs=tempfile
rm tempfile
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/lis
ed external binary
can't be found, the test program will now abort with an error, except
in the case of "tree", where an ls -laR will be performed instead.
The patch needs a proper LFS header applied and sending upstream
(hint, hint, nudge, nudge). Tested here on udev-067 without iss
ord security mechanism.
Alternatives to Cracklib:
Cracklib is only one possible password security checking mechanism.
Others include the passwdqc and npasswd
packages, and the Linux_PAM library. Please refer to the
linked pages for instructions on using these packages.
--
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxf
On 8/5/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/4/05, steve crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/5/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:12 CST:
> > >
> > > >
On 8/5/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve crosby wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:56 CST:
>
> > Regardless, if the end user doesn't like/want the policy, all that's
> > required is to skip this package installation, much the same as people
d user doesn't like/want the policy, all that's
required is to skip this package installation, much the same as people
can currently skip things like gettext, module-init tools, etc.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
or inclusion of cracklib in LFS (but NOT Linux_PAM!)
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
shadow password package provides all the listed
npasswd functionality and more on linux systems that I can see during
a quick read of the documentation (password aging, dictionary checks,
etc).
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
to get a version number.
>
Updated version attached, using DISTNAME makefile variable for version
control (and other minor enhancements)
-- -
Steve Crosby
bzip2-1.0.3-install_docs-2.patch
Description: Binary data
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
e stage (I
know at least perl used arch at some stage)
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
0.480.00 (0)
linux-2.6.12.3 271.62 0.89 (232)
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
d issues with these broken applications and
libraries.
I'm assuming the Xlib maintainers have been notified of the problem as well?
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Depends On:" section of each of the Chapter 5 package in order to
successfully build LFS.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
x, GCC,
Gettext, Glibc, Grep, M4, Make, Perl, Sed, and Texinfo
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 7/6/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve crosby wrote:
> > Oh, and you can make the menu selections look more like "tabs" using
> > CSS with relative ease.
>
> Sure. :) But again, the look is intentional. Out of curiosity, what did
&g
it's also a fair
distance to move the mouse ;)
Oh, and you can make the menu selections look more like "tabs" using
CSS with relative ease.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
7;t do much else.
This sounds suspiciously like the known bash bug - not returning
control to the shell. There is a patch for this on the LFS patches
repository, called something like bash-3.0-WCONTINUED-1.patch
Recompile bash with that patch and you should be all go.
- --
Steve Crosby
--
http
ot;MA:CA:DD:RE:SS:01", name="external"
I can then reliably assume that all processing on the interface named
external refers to the internet facing NIC ;)
- --
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
<10% variances in build times for the initial SBU, when you can get greater
variance than that due to other variables in the system.
(The point being, should we really care that much about how accurate the
SBU is, given it's a finger in the air, rough-guide anyway)
- --
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>> above configure option.
>
> +1 here. Included regex is just incorrect for ru_RU.KOI8-R (i.e. this
> affects the 6.1 book). Testcase:
>
FYI: added to BZ as bug 1507 so it doesn't get misplaced.
- --
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: h
hold our breath and look over our shoulders in fear
of any "competition" - the "build a system from scratch and learn on the
way" market place has plenty of room for others, and we're comfortable in
where we are, and the progress we are making.
As always, yours (and anyone elses) input is welcome, thanks for taking
the time to comment.
- --
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
cutable):
>
> if ( exec [ -r file1 ] ) ; then do_whatever ; fi
>
> I can't decide if that's more or less ugly than:
>
> if /bin/[ -r file1 ] ; then do_whatever ; fi
>
> though. It is a few characters longer, for whatever that's worth.
>
Just drop t
d route to send it down
(and static routing of this nature is very common)
Hope thats clearer - the "default" route is where I send a packet that I
don't otherwise know how to handle.
Note that I'm not saying multiple routes can't be configured, just that I
would prefer
Perhaps
you meant multiple routes between networks, which can already be added with
ip.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
y access to the
[b,h]lfs lists is via news, not mail, and my reader of choice does not
support replying via email, so I can't intelligently respond to
threads easily... ;(
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
ted in the message below, and looks like it's been approved.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2005-01/msg00288.html
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
ip static libraries, as the strip command
has a bug in it.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
ements and seeing what
if any issues arise in general usage.
On a related note: do we have a documented means of "testing" the toolchain
components to ensure we don't introduce host elements, other then the "boot
and see what breaks" approach? I have some spare CPU cycle
e full
bandwidth, using timeslicing as you are above. Had not heard of anyone
doing that over Ethernet before tho ;)
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Steve Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> "Robert R. Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:d0lq7l$ht0$1 @belgarath.linuxfromscratch.org:
>
>>
>> Why is stripping the host binaries the issue?
>> My Febua
the details you have given above, your host is compiled with a
fixed version of the strip command (and ld command as well), and so should
not see this issue.
(BIG NOTE: I'm lazy and busy at the moment, so I'm using the ugly binutils
version numbers from memory, and might
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Steve Crosby wrote these words on 03/07/05 20:12 CST:
>
>> 1. build the initial binutils and gcc in chapter 5 using dynamic
>> libs, rather than static (this avoids the stripped libc.a issue).
>>
2.15.91.0.2 in the initial chapter 5 (this results
in binutils ignoring the fact the symbols in libc.a on the host are borked,
but by chance that's the right option).
3. Just rebuild and replace libc.a on the host - none of the other glibc
libraries\files are relevant to this issue.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:OFE9389F4D.EB5D7A58-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>>For the LFS build - is there a recommendation about building LFS from
>>Linux
>>or Solaris?
>
> MUCH easier from linux ;-)
>
> There is this little matter of
ill end up being a playtoy for the missus and kids, so not to
worried about having to rebuild every now and then.
Just looking for some pointers to doco/info, as I'll start the building in
the next few days.
-- -
Steve Crosby
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lf
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Crosby wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've added some script-f
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>> I've added some script-foo to my build scripts to automatically
>> generate SBU's, Disk Usage and Installed Files details, and am
>> sharing below.
>
> befor
SBU: 2.56 (elapsed: 833)
linux-libc-headers - 2.6.10.0
Disk: 26.32
SBU: 0.00 (elapsed: 0)
glibc - 2.3.4
Disk: 223.36
SBU: 3.85 (elapsed: 1255)
gcc - 3.4.3
Disk: 148.10
SBU: 2.25 (elapsed: 733)
binutils - 2.15.94.0.2.2
Disk: 91.14
SBU: 1.05 (elapsed: 342)
gawk - 3.1.4
Disk: 14.71
SBU:
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
