Pushing forward with Onward.
robertmbaker at gmail.com
Wed Jun 17 11:43:07 PDT 2009
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Robert
Connolly<robert at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> See if this patch helps:
I will give that a try tonight. I did find a patch created by the
fedora team when I was going through this, but I don't know if that
was it. The one I found did not fix the build failure. More on this
after I escape work.
> LFS is using --with-installed-readline (system readline). There must be a way
> to make it work.
Ah. I missed the fact that they had moved up to bash-4.0 in the
development version. I will dig into this tonight as well so I can
figure out what is amiss with my readline installation. Thanks for the
> I'm also working on glibc-2.10.1 patches. The existing patches have a couple
> I simplified the arc4random patch, using netbsd's arc4random.c ported to
> linux. Made __arc4random_stir a weak alias so the internal version is always
> used, and so it never conflicts with a function in the application or another
> library. I'm figuring out a test suite for arc4random() just to see that it
> The mktemp_urandom patch uses the wrong error number when /dev/urandom doesn't
> Fixed mkstemps to use /dev/urandom. I found a test suite from INN (the news
> Made strlcat/strlcpy non-static, so they're in the shared library. This will
> break binary compatibility with other distributions. I found a test suite
> from INN.
> Some of the patches were using read(), instead of __read(). Fixed that.
I am eager to get my hands on your work for the next go around. I was
more or less concerned about getting a grasp on test suite failures
throughout the book this last time around. Considering how clean
things are with the tests I am very pleased with the direction things
> What's the view on upgrading GCC?
I am all for staying current so long as there are no breakages. I
would be more than willing to do a test build with an upgraded GCC
this next run through. Are you talking about moving up to GCC-4.4.0 or
do you have another release in mind?
Would you be interested in outlining any goals that you would like to
see set for the "stable" revision of the book? I am absolutely
interested in lending a hand wherever I can.
More information about the hlfs-dev