Matt Burgess wrote:
> Yeah, both xz and zlib install their libraries to /lib, but oddly
> enough, kmod still found them after telling it that they were
> in /usr/lib. I guess the linker's searching in /lib by default?
Yes, it should search /lib by default.
(Wandering a bit off topic...)
dummy
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 22:34 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Reading through the patch:
>
> Matt Burgess wrote:
> > And here's the latest version that I've just kicked off a build for.
> > This one even has the kmod.xml file in it that the last version
> > didn't. It applies on top of Bruce's fstab
Reading through the patch:
Matt Burgess wrote:
> And here's the latest version that I've just kicked off a build for.
> This one even has the kmod.xml file in it that the last version
> didn't. It applies on top of Bruce's fstab and bootscript changes in
> r9710.
> + remap="configure">BLKID_CF
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 actually required if you use systemd's internal
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 22:15 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Seeing as I assigned ticket #1998 (Udev-177) to myself before I realised
> that it wasn't as simple a package upgrade as usual, I thought I'd take
> a stab at getting LFS to work with it. Attached is the patch I'm about
> to do
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 actually required if you use systemd's internal mount
facilities -- it does not manage mtab and the file will be em
On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs. I
> assume you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the grub boot
> line?
It is. When the system boots always mounts the "rootfs" device. If you use
ini
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeremy Huntwork"
> To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Udev-177 & Kmod-3 WIP patch
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Huntwork"
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Udev-177 & Kmod-3 WIP patch
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >
> > I'd be cu
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> /dev/root / ext3
>> rw,relatime,errors=continue,barrier=0
>
> Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs.
> I assume you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the
> g
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> /dev/root / ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,barrier=0
Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs. I assume
you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the grub boot line?
JH
--
http://linuxf
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> My objection is that mtab has
>> /dev/sda5 / ext3 rw 0 0
>>
>> where /proc/mounts has
>> rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
>>
>> 'rootfs' doesn't tell me much. I can see that it is the rootfs because
>> it's mounted on /./dev/
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> My objection is that mtab has
> /dev/sda5 / ext3 rw 0 0
>
> where /proc/mounts has
> rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
>
> 'rootfs' doesn't tell me much. I can see that it is the rootfs because
> it's mounted on /./dev/sda5 and ext3 give me informati
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> I'd be curious what's in /proc/mounts as well, but eh whatever.
>
> Is there a reason LFS doesn't just symlink /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts?
My objection is that mtab has
/dev/sda5 / ext3 rw 0 0
where /proc/mounts has
On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> I'd be curious what's in /proc/mounts as well, but eh whatever.
Is there a reason LFS doesn't just symlink /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts?
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsub
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:47:10 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't want to step on Matt's toes, but I'm going to make a change in
> the bootscripts and section 8.2/8.3 in a couple of minutes.
No probs, Bruce. As per $subject, my patch is WIP, so feel free to make
any changes. My patch workflow le
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>> What I actually did was to include DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
>
> ...
>
> Oh, *that* option! Heh. I had forgotten it existed. :-)
>
>> As a possibly interesting aside, even though the DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
>> seemingly does the right thing here, it does not cause
Matt Burgess wrote:
> What I actually did was to include DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
...
Oh, *that* option! Heh. I had forgotten it existed. :-)
> As a possibly interesting aside, even though the DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
> seemingly does the right thing here, it does not cause /dev to be
> listed by either 'df' o
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 15:58 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Matt Burgess wrote:
>>> This passes a boot test with no changes required to the bootscripts
>>> or fstab. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Bruce's and Bryan's comments in
>>> the ticket, but this to me suggests that Udev >=
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 15:58 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matt Burgess wrote:
> > This passes a boot test with no changes required to the bootscripts
> > or fstab. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Bruce's and Bryan's comments in
> > the ticket, but this to me suggests that Udev >= 176 doesn't require
>
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:28:45AM -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> (Sorry, getting a bit cynical again. NM isn't bad, but it doesn't cover
> enough use cases for me to look into using it myself, and the fact that
> at least Ubuntu builds it to require GNOME -- I'm not sure if this is a
> NM requi
Le 15/01/2012 13:48, Matt Burgess a écrit :
> "The rules to create persistent network interface and cdrom link
> rules automatically in /etc/udev/rules.d/ have been disabled by
> default. Explicit configuration will be required for these use
> cases, udev will no longer try to write any persistent
Matt Burgess wrote:
> The second issue is this, inflicted on us from upstream since version
> 174:
>
> "The rules to create persistent network interface and cdrom link
> rules automatically in /etc/udev/rules.d/ have been disabled by
> default. Explicit configuration will be required for these
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 16:41 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matt Burgess wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Seeing as I assigned ticket #1998 (Udev-177) to myself before I realised
> > that it wasn't as simple a package upgrade as usual, I thought I'd take
> > a stab at getting LFS to work with it. Attached
Matt Burgess wrote:
> This passes a boot test with no changes required to the bootscripts
> or fstab. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Bruce's and Bryan's comments in
> the ticket, but this to me suggests that Udev >= 176 doesn't require
> a devtmpfs mounted on /dev
That's very strange, given this comm
Matt Burgess wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Seeing as I assigned ticket #1998 (Udev-177) to myself before I realised
> that it wasn't as simple a package upgrade as usual, I thought I'd take
> a stab at getting LFS to work with it. Attached is the patch I'm about
> to do a full build with, but the instruct
Hi all,
Seeing as I assigned ticket #1998 (Udev-177) to myself before I realised
that it wasn't as simple a package upgrade as usual, I thought I'd take
a stab at getting LFS to work with it. Attached is the patch I'm about
to do a full build with, but the instructions there seem to work fine on
27 matches
Mail list logo
