[Techtalk] questions re installing gcc-3.4.2

Darlene Wallach wallachd at earthlink.net
Wed Sep 22 23:49:50 EST 2004


Val Henson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:58:07 -0700, Darlene Wallach
> <wallachd at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>I'm acutally downloading tar files so I can get used to
>>configuring, building, and installing software.
> 
> 
> That sounds like a great idea, although I would personally start out
> with compiling something smaller like file-utils or xchat or the like.
>  gcc, if nothing else, just takes a long time to build (and so it
> takes a long time to find out if something has gone wrong).
> 

 From the reading I've been doing, it sounds like gcc is
a very big deal. But that's okay.

I have installed other packages from tarballs using
config, make, install. It took me a while to figure
out config. And I'm embarrassed to admit that it
wasn't until the other day that I read something
suggesting putting the source in one directory and
building in another - I thought it was strange to
build in the same directory.

> 
>>What I'm really up to is I want to look at and learn
>>the Linux kernel and device drivers. I've downloaded
>>the 2.6.8.1 kernel. The kernel hackers website suggests
>>using BitKeeper. So I have downloaded glibc-2.3.3,
>>gcc-3.4.2 and all the required versions of support stuff.
>>Looks like quite an undertaking - I need to reread the
>>directions/instructions again. I'm not sure how to figure
>>out if I have an earlier version of glibc already installed
>>or only some version of libc. So I have some more
>>research to do on my computer.
> 
> 
> Have you read the LinuxChix Kernel Hacking Lessons?
> 
> http://www.linuxchix.org/content/courses/kernel_hacking/
> 
Yes, I have been using that as one of my references. It is
where I saw it suggested to use BitKeeper, which I plan
on using.

> The way I find out what version of glibc is installed is:
> 
> $ ls /lib/libc-*
> 
> (glibc is libc - GNU libc.)
duh - thank you - I feel silly now
> 
> 
>>That reminds me, an earlier version of BitKeeper
>>wants a hostname for my computer. I have never had
>>a hostname - only the default localhost, which is not
>>a valid hostname.
> 
> 
> What I've been doing is adding a line like this to my /etc/hosts file:
> 
> 10.0.0.3        host3.sbcglobal.net     host3
> 
> Abstracted, it's:
> 
> <my ip> <made up host>.<my ISP domain> <made up host>
so the ip just has to look legal, it doesn't have to be an actual ip?
Earthlink is my isp and I have a dial-up modem so I don't have a
static ip.

> 
> But don't tell Larry I told you to do that. :)
> 
> 
>>>P.S. I'm trying out gmail for the first time - apologies if line
>>>lengths are off or anything like that.
>>
>>Everything seems fine to me. btw, you're not
>>worried about your privacy with gmail?
> 
> 
> For mailing list email?  No.  I'm hardly taking any reasonable
> precautions for privacy in my personal email account anyway.  The main
> reason I'm using it is that I'm trying to avoid becoming a software
> Luddite - you know, the person still using that 20-year-old window
> manager?
> 

What concerns me about gmail is that they keep it and
search it - it would be availble for the govt to access.
It is nobody's business.

I have no idea what gmail is like. Do you have to login
to google and access it like people do with hotmail and
yahoo email accounts?

> -VAL
> 




More information about the Techtalk mailing list