On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:58:30AM +0300, Tarek Ghaleb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been looking at the way Man Pages are installed on my LFS system, and
> comparing this to what FHS-2.3 recommends and came up with some
> observations/questions:
>
> * FHS-2.3 recommends that man pages be installed un
I posted this message to the livecd-list any they suggested me to cc this
here. Perhaps somebody could help me here :)
> Hi,
>
> I downloaded the latest LFS liveCD and booted it. Unfortunately there
> are many messages like this
> "MCE: non-fatal correctible incident found at CPU 0" which mess u
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:38:13AM +0200, Michael Stather wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I downloaded the latest LFS liveCD and booted it. Unfortunately there are
> many messages like this
> "MCE: non-fatal correctible incident found at CPU 0" which mess up the
> console.
> What does this mean and can I suppre
Hello,
I have worked my way up to this section 6.11.1 I go
to prepare the Glibc for compilation and It gets so
far then stops stating:
"Checking for suffix of object
filesconfigure:error:cannot compute suffix of
object file, cannot compute. See config log for more
details.
So I go to the co
Michael Stather wrote:
> I posted this message to the livecd-list any they suggested me to cc this
> here. Perhaps somebody could help me here :)
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I downloaded the latest LFS liveCD and booted it. Unfortunately there
>>are many messages like this
>>"MCE: non-fatal correctible inci
chris coneway wrote:
So I go to the config log and the cofigure progam that
failed was confdefs.h program failed.
Hmm, you're missing some vital information here - what did config.log
complain about specifically when attempting to compile the failing program?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/
On 8/31/05, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/31/05, David Ciecierski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello again,
> > as you can see in the topic I'm following "The Hint"... and can't cope
> > with installing gnome-panel anymore. Could someone please post how they
> > did this? My ins
On 8/30/05, Tarek Ghaleb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the question is: Is the /usr/share/man/ a more suitable
> heirarchy? Considering, that there are already packages that install man
> pages in mandir/, would a unified heirarchy be more desirable?
Well, the way I understand it, all the Engli
