> Q: Is anyone using `autoconf`? I wonder if it's worth learning to
> use, and what people use it for. (I've barely glanced over the
> manuals for it, so far.)
Most main GNU packages (ie. what's on prep) have switched over to
autoconf (even gcc itself probably will, there's an effort underway,
On Sun, 18 May 1997, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> `The `tar` errors about stripping / are no big deal; I will
> 2>/dev/null them. I don't know why it cannot find
> "/etc/securetty"... anyone know? The reason I want the scripts to
> report is so I can find out which one gives that 'shell-init' error
If got it right, ldso can remember if a library is intended for libc5 or
libc6.. right? So it must be possible to have the same soname,version of a
library compiled for bith libc5 and libc6 (in different directories). Am I
right? If I were... what would the policy be for packaging the libraries?
Karl Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. After completing the badblocks scan when 'initalizing' a hard disk, it
> starts writing the tables - I get "Could not get a free page..." error come
> up - however the format finishes and the partition seems fine and usable.
This is a kernel problem,
"Karl M. Hegbloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Q: Is anyone using `autoconf`? I wonder if it's worth learning to
> use, and what people use it for. (I've barely glanced over the
> manuals for it, so far.)
Use autoconf with automake. It's much easier to use the two in
combination. If you fee
Karl Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. I installed shadowing as it suggested - started installing packages
> merrily. I also installed and configured NIS - however, I cannot log in
> any in my personal account - though I can finger anyone without trouble. I
> deinstalled shadow by doing
Hi Guys.
I just tested the new 1.3 disks and the system seems great. Of course,
there are some little qwerks which I'm not sure if they're related to my
hardware or not. They are:
1. After completing the badblocks scan when 'initalizing' a hard disk, it
starts writing the tables - I get "Could
Since the output from cron jobs is mailed anyhow, as it should be, I
think that all cron scripts should report in as they are run, and that
this should be made a standard. Here's why.
Every morning, lately, after my cron.daily directory is run, I get
this in the mail:
8<-
On Thu, 15 May 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 'Amos Shapira wrote:'
> >
> >I was asking over Linux-ISP about doing cleanup after breakins and got
> >many "use tripwire" answers, and one which says that RPM has a verify
> >mode which checks for files which were changed since they were
> >installed.
Andy Mortimer wrote:
> There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
> in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
> before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
> what features are available in the `original sh'.
I us
There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
what features are available in the `original sh'.
Is there a list somewhere, which
> "Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> "Karl M. Hegbloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The special thing was to have upgraded to Bash-2.0. I just
>> downgraded to 1.14.7, and the scripts run now. I think we
>> should report this as a Bash bug.
Rob> Ch
12 matches
Mail list logo
