On 7/31/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> > I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That
> > should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along.
>
> New Glibc's are now up.
Thanks, Greg. Was there no announcement?
--
Dan
--
ht
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That
> should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along.
New Glibc's are now up.
Regards
Greg
--
http://www.diy-linux.org/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I tagged 6.3-rc1. I also added 7.0 to the wiki milestones and 6.3-rc1
> and 7.0 to the versions for tickets.
Thanks. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need
>> to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open
>
> Can we cut trunk to a release/testing/6.3 branch so that we can begin
> doing 7.0 type work on trunk
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I guess I can do it again. Most of the stuff is mechanical. We'd need
> to decide on a package freeze. Right now there are a total of 16 open
Can we cut trunk to a release/testing/6.3 branch so that we can begin
doing 7.0 type work on trunk?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscra
On 7/23/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Lunes, 23 de Julio de 2007 20:49, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> > That doesn't say too much. OK, looking at postix/test-vfork3.c, I
> > think I see the issue. At that point it does 'unsetenv ("PATH");' and
> > then tries to execute "echo". For
El Lunes, 23 de Julio de 2007 20:49, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> That doesn't say too much. OK, looking at postix/test-vfork3.c, I
> think I see the issue. At that point it does 'unsetenv ("PATH");' and
> then tries to execute "echo". For this to work, we need to have echo
> in /bin, which we don't
On 7/23/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Lunes, 23 de Julio de 2007 02:37, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> > That's what I meant.
>
> tst-vfork3.out just contains:
>
> script 1
> script 1
> script 1
> script 1
> script 1
> script 2
> script 2
> script 2
> script 2
> script 2
> script 3
El Lunes, 23 de Julio de 2007 02:37, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> That's what I meant.
tst-vfork3.out just contains:
script 1
script 1
script 1
script 1
script 1
script 2
script 2
script 2
script 2
script 2
script 3
script 3
script 3
script 3
script 3
echo failed with status 512
Do you need tst-vf
On 7/22/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Domingo, 22 de Julio de 2007 20:15, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> >
> > Do you still have the output from tst-vfork3?
> >
>
> Do you meant the log output on the posix/tst-vfork3.out file?
>
> If the later, I will need to do a new build but stop
El Domingo, 22 de Julio de 2007 20:15, Dan Nicholson escribió:
>
> Do you still have the output from tst-vfork3?
>
Do you meant the log output on the posix/tst-vfork3.out file?
If the later, I will need to do a new build but stopping it before Glibc
sources and build directory deletion.
--
M
On 7/22/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Jueves, 19 de Julio de 2007 00:13, Matthew Burgess escribió:
>
> > I did a full final system testsuite run with the latest package updates
> > (including a repackaged version of the latest iproute2 package). No
> > failures there. I've not
El Jueves, 19 de Julio de 2007 00:13, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> I did a full final system testsuite run with the latest package updates
> (including a repackaged version of the latest iproute2 package). No
> failures there. I've not done an ICA/farce build though, so that would
> certainly be
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>
>> Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files.
>> Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he
>> does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is
>> slightly different and possibly not backw
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:55:50 +0200, "M.Canales.es" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will start some ICA/farce and full-testsuites builds.
I did a full final system testsuite run with the latest package updates
(including a repackaged version of the latest iproute2 package). No failures
there. I
El Miércoles, 18 de Julio de 2007 02:49, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> What do you want for a target release date? I would think we could get
> a -rc1 out in a week if we don't make any changes to the tool chain.
Looks good.
I will start some ICA/farce and full-testsuites builds.
--
Manuel Canale
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:57:08PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > I was going to say 'yes' to a package freeze (and if glibc-2.5.1
> > appears in a timely fashion you can knock me down with the proverbial
> > feather!), except that (
On 7/17/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What do your bootscript patches do, and how do you view their risk
> > ?
>
> Should be backwards compatible. A couple I have queued up but keep
> forgetting to commit them. Add an early
On 7/18/07, Dejan Čabrilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:56 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30,
> > but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can
> > pretty much push a package freeze right
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:56 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30,
> but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can
> pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only
> thing I'd be interested in s
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files.
> Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he
> does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is
> slightly different and possibly not backwards compatible since the
> cur
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:16:20PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That
> should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along.
Duly noted. And I don't see why that wouldn't be fine. Especially as
once we clear up the remaining t
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:20PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2
> > and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3.
>
> Well, it seems a good time for a package freeze the
On 7/17/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What do your bootscript patches do, and how do you view their risk
> ?
Should be backwards compatible. A couple I have queued up but keep
forgetting to commit them. Add an early script to quiet the kernel log
level, then kill the level handlin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:20PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2
> and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3.
Well, it seems a good time for a package freeze then, especially after
Matt brought us up to speed with several pac
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> I was going to say 'yes' to a package freeze (and if glibc-2.5.1
> appears in a timely fashion you can knock me down with the proverbial
> feather!), except that (a) ISTR you weren't very confident about
> linux-2.6.21 (you quoted Dave
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> For some reason, my responses to the existing thread regarding a 6.3
> release haven't made it through to the list. Hopefully this one
> does!
>
> I agree with the fact that LFS-6.3 is long overdue. In order to see
> this gets done sooner rather than later,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:56:57PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30,
> but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can
> pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only
> thing I'd be inter
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission?
>
> I'm willing to be a wing-man. :) I'll do what I can to help, but I doubt
> I have enough free time to
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission?
I'm willing to be a wing-man. :) I'll do what I can to help, but I doubt
I have enough free time to tackle it all alone. A release comittee/group
might be a good id
Hi guys,
For some reason, my responses to the existing thread regarding a 6.3 release
haven't made it through to the list. Hopefully this one does!
I agree with the fact that LFS-6.3 is long overdue. In order to see this gets
done sooner rather than later, I think it only fair I pass on the r
31 matches
Mail list logo
