[lfs-support] SOLVED: lfs 7.4 section 5.9.1. Installation of Binutils error: Cannot run C compiled programs
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu Nov 14 09:25:35 PST 2013
>> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:00:31 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com>
>> To: LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] SOLVED: lfs 7.4 section 5.9.1. Installation of
>> Binutils error: Cannot run C compiled programs
>>>>> What happens if you do:
>>>>> (1) highlight & copy the text using the same method - i.e. same mouse buttons,
>>>>> same source of text (html/pdf/...), same environment (terminal/browser/...),
>>>>> etc - as when it went wrong.
>>>>> (2) vi -i
>>>>> (3) do the paste using the same method - i.e. use same mouse button (I think you
>>>>> said middle-click), etc - as when it had gone wrong.
>>>>> (4) save to a filename /tmp/tstpst or similar.
>>>> You don't need to do that to see what is being pasted. Using vim, just
>>>> :set list. It displays non-visible characters like \r \t \n etc so you
>>>> can easily see exactly what you have.
>>> Yes, for the first part: the suggested list of steps, though, is _obviously_
>>> for both the user seeing it _and_ for posting to list if necessary. Your
>>> suggested alternative is impractical in that respect.
>> You mean like this?
>> A return ^M a tab ^I and a newline$
> Not quite sure what, if any, point (or perceived point) are you intending to
> address there. Apols if being a bit dense on it.
> You seem to be just (side-)describing something, rather than explicitly hooking
> into the user-reported issue; again, apols if am being dense on what you're
> saying or alluding to. Your original wording and its position, were more that of
> a contradiction, than that of a side- or additional comment; and as such, it
> seemed a bit misplaced.
My initial point was to present a method to see non-printing characters
that may show up in a paste. Nothing else. The followup point was to
show that that metod could be used to paste into an email message for
posting to the list.
> Anyway, ... the overall goal was to if necessary get that info posted to list
> via, if possible, only a single copy-paste operation within the 'work'flow, so's
> to avoid any multiple copy-paste errors layering on top of each other, in case
> the problem is some weird one with the user's copy-paste mechanism(s) per se.
I see your point, but I've never seen the issue arise.
More information about the lfs-support