On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:55:01PM +0100, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 05:03:55PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote:
> > On 6/6/20 4:39 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
> >
> > > Well, again thanks, but I'm not at all certain. For example, the
> > > host system is t
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 05:03:55PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote:
> On 6/6/20 4:39 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
>
> > Well, again thanks, but I'm not at all certain. For example, the
> > host system is the one where after its first boot I managed to run
> > the 'check' tests without f
On 6/6/20 4:39 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
Well, again thanks, but I'm not at all certain. For example, the
host system is the one where after its first boot I managed to run
the 'check' tests without failures. Now (normal desktop installed,
but same kernel) the tests which raise sigfpe
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 04:02:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote:
> On 6/6/20 2:05 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
> > I can see that the tester user gets added by a command which uses
> > ls -n $(tty)
> > and I now see that this results for me in a value of 1000.
> >
> > What I don't u
On 6/6/20 2:05 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
I can see that the tester user gets added by a command which uses
ls -n $(tty)
and I now see that this results for me in a value of 1000.
What I don't understand is where that comes from. On my systems
user 1000 happens to be the most important
I can see that the tester user gets added by a command which uses
ls -n $(tty)
and I now see that this results for me in a value of 1000.
What I don't understand is where that comes from. On my systems
user 1000 happens to be the most important regular user (i.e. me)
and (after trying a build wi
