NNTP Server
Is there any realistic expectation that the facility to write to the lists via the NNTP service will be fixed? There is also a suggestion that it might be withdrawn. I ask, since I'm updating the text in the BLFS book, and I want to accurately reflect the true situation. My current draft reads: All the mailing lists hosted at linuxfromscratch.org are also accessible via the NNTP server. All messages posted to a mailing list will be copied to its correspondent newsgroup. Note, however, that as this is written, it is not possible to write to the mailing lists via the NNTP service. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New BLFS Editor
Thank you all for your good wishes. I shall endeavour to limit the damage I cause by, for instance, my tipografikal inexaktytudes. Richard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: NNTP Server
Richard A Downing wrote: Is there any realistic expectation that the facility to write to the lists via the NNTP service will be fixed? There is also a suggestion that it might be withdrawn. I came up with a plan that may well have fixed NNTP, but have been too busy to get around to it. As it necessesitates bringing down both NNTP and mailman for a while, then it also needs to be planned accordingly. I've also recently realised that if one CC's a list, only the 'To:' recipient gets a copy in their respective news group! I'm not sure whether it's always been like that or not, but it certainly seems broken to me! Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow Group Support
Matthew Burgess wrote: FWIW, if upstream believe it shouldn't be on by default, then we should follow their recommendation and drop the optional 'grpconv' command from the book. I have no idea how common shadowed groups are out in the wild though. AFAIK, the only time that gshadow is used is when a user executes newgrp or sg. That is only necessary if a user is creating a new file as a member of one of their non-default groups. The equivalent method would be to jsut create a file and do a chgrp on the created file. Adding a group password to this process seems pretty exotic to me and I suspect its use would be quite rare, hence the omission by default. I would recommend going with the developer's approach and leaving this for some trivia^H^H^H^H^H^H certification test. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: NNTP Server
Richard A Downing wrote: Is there any realistic expectation that the facility to write to the lists via the NNTP service will be fixed? There is also a suggestion that it might be withdrawn. I ask, since I'm updating the text in the BLFS book, and I want to accurately reflect the true situation. My current draft reads: All the mailing lists hosted at linuxfromscratch.org are also accessible via the NNTP server. All messages posted to a mailing list will be copied to its correspondent newsgroup. Note, however, that as this is written, it is not possible to write to the mailing lists via the NNTP service. Seems reasonable to me. What you have is correct right now. We can always update it if the situation changes. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST: So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue and you don't. I think you owe me an apology. Greg you talk about giving credit to people's who work you use, I don't see such a page on your website, giving credit to individual's where it's due. Everyone one was just asked, nicely, to quit blaming/pointing fingers/etc. at one-another. It was agreed that in order for this list to become productive again, posts like the one above should be eliminated. Come on, guys, if there's nothing nice to say, don't say anything. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 12:54:00 up 118 days, 12:27, 2 users, load average: 0.23, 0.15, 0.16 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: In my book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had to be a better solution. Hi Jim, Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of lib64|lib), or indeed pure64 just using lib, for x86_64 because they require seds or patches to gcc ? Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Randy McMurchy wrote: Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST: So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue and you don't. I think you owe me an apology. Greg you talk about giving credit to people's who work you use, I don't see such a page on your website, giving credit to individual's where it's due. Everyone one was just asked, nicely, to quit blaming/pointing fingers/etc. at one-another. It was agreed that in order for this list to become productive again, posts like the one above should be eliminated. Come on, guys, if there's nothing nice to say, don't say anything. Randy, I was pointing out the facts, as I see them and as they are on the list. This is my only post on this whole issue, everything else has come through Gerard after communicating with me. It's time for me to defend myself, because this little issue has caused me a very big problem, that only Gerard and few others know about. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Ken Moffat wrote: On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote: In my book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had to be a better solution. Hi Jim, Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of lib64|lib), or indeed pure64 just using lib, for x86_64 because they require seds or patches to gcc ? Ken Ken, There are ways to build a pure64 bit gcc without patching. I've been looking into that for a while. I was thinking about adding pure 64 bit builds to the cross-lfs book, maybe I should just do that. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Dependency on libiconv in J2SDK-1.4.2 ?
Tushar Teredesai wrote: There is no good place to warn in BLFS (there is no section Packages Not to Install, maybe there should be!). Hence, IMO the best option is the package with which it clashes. Right, my thought on this was that a note could be put on each of the packages that are known to mention a libiconv requirement in their README or other docs. As you state that this might in fact affect LFS packages too, I'm not sure I'm going to pursue that particular line of thinking any further :) 2. The warning in LFS may have been forgotten about by the time someone comes to install an affected package. We can always point back to the note in LFS and say See, now you have borked your glibc installation, go and redo LFS :-) Well, I suppose there's plenty of other places along the LFS/BLFS way where we provide folks with (more than) enough rope to hang themselves with...this is one more I guess :) If you can think of suitable wording for the Glibc page in LFS, I don't mind adding it. I know that's more my job than yours, but I'm not fully up to speed on the exact issues involved. Cheers, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 13:22 CST: I was pointing out the facts, as I see them and as they are on the list. This is my only post on this whole issue, everything else has come through Gerard after communicating with me. It's time for me to defend myself, because this little issue has caused me a very big problem, that only Gerard and few others know about. Okay, but it seems a personal problem could be resolved off-list with the interested parties. I personally could care less about all the finger pointing and accusatory text. I overlook it, forget about it and don't care about it. Personal defenses included. The only thing folks care about here is identification and solution finding for technical problems and issues within building current and future LFS'. IMHO. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 14:29:01 up 118 days, 14:02, 2 users, load average: 0.40, 0.26, 0.38 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Dependency on libiconv in J2SDK-1.4.2 ?
On 7/29/05, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you can think of suitable wording for the Glibc page in LFS, I don't mind adding it. I know that's more my job than yours, but I'm not fully up to speed on the exact issues involved. Netiher am I :-) All I know is glibc and libiconv should not be installed on the same system. How about the following note? Of course edit it for grammar and other things: Some of the package installation documents indicate that you will need to install libiconv available at http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/. This library should not be installed on a glibc based system glibc implements iconv functionality. Installing libiconv on a glibc based system causes problems when compiling some packages. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Dependency on libiconv in J2SDK-1.4.2 ?
Matthew Burgess wrote: for the Glibc page in LFS, I don't mind adding it. I know that's more my job than yours, but I'm not fully up to speed on the exact issues involved. Matt, it's called delegating *g* It's no longer your job when you deem it to be somebody elses. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New BLFS Editor
Richard A Downing wrote: Thank you all for your good wishes. I shall endeavour to limit the damage I cause by, for instance, my tipografikal inexaktytudes. That would just make things more...interesting -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
autoconf-2.59 error in lfs-gcc4-20050728
I get the folowing error doing make in autoconf-2.59 in lfs-gcc4-20050728 Can't locate Data/Dumper.pm in @INC.( @INC contains: ---blah blah ... /test/../lib/Autom4te/C4che.pm line 35 BEGIN failed --compilation aborted at /sources/autoconf-2.59//test/../lib/Autom4te/C4che.pm line 35. I assume autoconf needs a patch for gcc4 - sorry I am not capable of producing one but my programming skills are close to zero. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: autoconf-2.59 error in lfs-gcc4-20050728
I get the folowing error doing make in autoconf-2.59 in lfs-gcc4-20050728 Where can a fellow take a look at the gcc4 book? :) I'd be interested in providing some feedback on this! :) Dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Shadow Group Support
Greg Schafer wrote: No, that is the whole problem. The upstream developer has not made it Gotcha, I misunderstood that bit. Well that does change things a bit. If the developers don't have it figured out yet, let's then maintain the status quo for now? -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Jim Gifford wrote: So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your work and didn't give you credit, Jim, never once have I used the word stolen. The changes you made to the LFS Cross build made it look *remarkably* like my proof-of-concept cross scripts. Like I said in the beginning, this is a good thing, because it's the right thing. If you have learned something from my research, even tho' you didn't implement my recommendations exactly, then I am elated. Look, if the LFS cross build has any hope of becoming the mainstream build, it needs to be technically correct. I am here trying to help out. Ryan was man enough to make peace. How about you Jim? For the betterment of everybody, let's just get on with making a perfect cross build eh? Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Greg Schafer wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your work and didn't give you credit, Jim, never once have I used the word stolen. The changes you made to the LFS Cross build made it look *remarkably* like my proof-of-concept cross scripts. Like I said in the beginning, this is a good thing, because it's the right thing. If you have learned something from my research, even tho' you didn't implement my recommendations exactly, then I am elated. After looking at your commit in detail, it's quite clear to me that you've borrowed elements of my research when making these massive changes. I don't mind you doing that, because it's a step in the right direction, but could you please do the proper and ethical thing and at least give credit where credit is due? I suspect Gerard and Matt will be rather unhappy if their team members are participating in unethical practices. For the record, I've learned a lot from studying Ryan's scripts and should I ever produce some cross compilation documentation I will be acknowledging thework in Cross-lfs, along with Crosstool, etc, etc, etc... The way this is worded Greg implies that I stole the ideas from you. Look, if the LFS cross build has any hope of becoming the mainstream build, it needs to be technically correct. I am here trying to help out. Ryan was man enough to make peace. How about you Jim? For the betterment of everybody, let's just get on with making a perfect cross build eh? Are you man enough to apologize for false allegations? Look through the threads on this discussion. Unethical practices (That's calling the kettle black) No technical toolchain knowledge. (You have never talked with me, so you don't know my skill set.) How do you expect me to work with you on something when you attacked me like you did, what you did was totally uncalled for and unacceptable by moral standards. You should of communicated to me privately, instead of opening this up in the public eye, where this discussion will stay, to protect us both. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Change r6572 Roadmap
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:29 CST: [snip bunch of garbage] How do you expect me to work with you on something when you attacked me like you did, what you did was totally uncalled for and unacceptable by moral standards. You should of communicated to me privately, instead of opening this up in the public eye, where this discussion will stay, to protect us both. C'mon Jim, work this out off list. Nobody here gives a shit about all this. We only care about the technical stuff. You say instead of opening this up in the public eye, yet you won't let it go. Please drop it. Nobody cares. Instead of bickering with Greg, just let it go. If you guys can't work together so be it. Leave your disagreements off this list. Remember guys, he who has the last word in an argument is not the winner. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 00:30:00 up 119 days, 3 min, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.08, 0.31 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
