[lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Regards, Frans. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
On 16.2.2014 12:59, Frans de Boer wrote: Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? I doubt he ever contributed any code to upstream systemd. If you by systemd mean the LFS systemd book, then no, he is one of the maintainers of LFS with sysvinit, on which LFS systemd is based. Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Regards, Frans. See the following two threads: https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg16106.html and https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg16069.html including replies from Bruce and other people. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:59:19 +0100 From: Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? - well, maybe much of 'the Linux world': much of 'the rest of the world' uses windows/mac/android; why would you use linux (per se) when much of 'the rest of the world' has not moved to it? There is of course the systemd-lfs branch. ((It's apt to be known as 'systemd-lfs' rather than 'lfs-systemd', to get correct the order of 'drivers' - i.e. dictating what you will do.)) Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. That 'However ...' sentence appears to contain multiple fallacious assumptions, leaps of 'logic', c: could you detail a bit more your line of thought there? (GroupThink LockStep) != (genuine value progress). I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. A POS always has its attractants. Bear in mind that Linux start by going, at least substantially, against the flow. You may wish to lookup the von Neumann / Hilbert quote about the flow of rivers. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Again, there's the sysd-lfs branch. Were you aware of that? hth, akhiezer Regards, Frans. -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
On 02/16/2014 01:52 PM, Armin K. wrote: On 16.2.2014 12:59, Frans de Boer wrote: Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? I doubt he ever contributed any code to upstream systemd. If you by systemd mean the LFS systemd book, then no, he is one of the maintainers of LFS with sysvinit, on which LFS systemd is based. Hm, the reason I posted it in the first place was just because I noticed that Bruce his name was attached to systemd - somewhere. I can't find it any more but still my question stands. Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Regards, Frans. See the following two threads: https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg16106.html and https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg16069.html including replies from Bruce and other people. Continue with the reply of akhiezer -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
On 02/16/2014 02:55 PM, akhiezer wrote: Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:59:19 +0100 From: Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? - well, maybe much of 'the Linux world': much of 'the rest of the world' uses windows/mac/android; why would you use linux (per se) when much of 'the rest of the world' has not moved to it? This was written in the context of Linux LFS. There is of course the systemd-lfs branch. ((It's apt to be known as 'systemd-lfs' rather than 'lfs-systemd', to get correct the order of 'drivers' - i.e. dictating what you will do.)) Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. That 'However ...' sentence appears to contain multiple fallacious assumptions, leaps of 'logic', c: could you detail a bit more your line of thought there? (GroupThink LockStep) != (genuine value progress). I was not meant to take on the whole world so don't take it too literally. I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. A POS always has its attractants. Bear in mind that Linux start by going, at least substantially, against the flow. You may wish to lookup the von Neumann / Hilbert quote about the flow of rivers. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Again, there's the sysd-lfs branch. Were you aware of that? No, I was not aware of that but have found it in the mean time. I will look into it, thanks for the pointers! Frans. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] error: ld returned 1 exit status , during glibc compilation
make --print-file-name=crtend.o` /mnt/bdux/sources/glibc-build/csu/crtn.o /mnt/bdux/sources/glibc-build/timezone/scheck.o: file not recognized: File truncated collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/mnt/bdux/sources/glibc-build/timezone/zic] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/bdux/sources/glibc-2.18/timezone' make[1]: *** [timezone/others] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/bdux/sources/glibc-2.18' make: *** [all] Error 2 shibly -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:41:16 +0100 From: Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit On 02/16/2014 02:55 PM, akhiezer wrote: Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:59:19 +0100 From: Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? - well, maybe much of 'the Linux world': much of 'the rest of the world' uses windows/mac/android; why would you use linux (per se) when much of 'the rest of the world' has not moved to it? This was written in the context of Linux LFS. Yes, that's taken as read. But it's not the central point there. The central point there is that you seem to advocate a plain'n'simple follow-the-herd mentality. You seem to advocate a switch simply because (you don't give any other reason there) 'everyone else is doing it': i.e. because there is a majority, within a given set of people, doing a thing, then you advocate following suit. If that's the basis for your reasoning, then: apply it to another set, e.g. computer use in general, and then ask why don't you advocate using windows/mac ? Why stick to linux when the vast majority of the rest of the world is with windows/mac? Your exhibiting a behaviour within one context, does not preclude folks pointing out to you at least some downsides of that: and illustrating by pointing out to you things like, for just one example, 'well what would be the outcome if you behaved the same way - took the same attitude - in this slightly wider and related context'. There is of course the systemd-lfs branch. ((It's apt to be known as 'systemd-lfs' rather than 'lfs-systemd', to get correct the order of 'drivers' - i.e. dictating what you will do.)) Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. That 'However ...' sentence appears to contain multiple fallacious assumptions, leaps of 'logic', c: could you detail a bit more your line of thought there? (GroupThink LockStep) != (genuine value progress). I was not meant to take on the whole world so don't take it too literally. I think you miss the point, namely ( again): your 'However ...' sentence appears to contain multiple fallacious assumptions, leaps of 'logic', c: it doesn't really follow from or tie-in well, with what you say anywhere else; could you detail a bit more your line of thought there? I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. A POS always has its attractants. Bear in mind that Linux start by going, at least substantially, against the flow. You may wish to lookup the von Neumann / Hilbert quote about the flow of rivers. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Again, there's the sysd-lfs branch. Were you aware of that? No, I was not aware of that but have found it in the mean time. I will look into it, thanks for the pointers! You're welcome. Enjoy your precious time spend on it. rgds, akh Frans. -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Basic Kernel Configuration
On 02/16/2014 02:38 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:04:12AM +0100, Armin K. wrote: Hello there, I have been spending my time on LFS IRC for a long time now and have noticed that most users who come for help there get stuck at configuring their kernel. Thus, I have written a rather basic guide on how to configure the kernel to get your machine to boot for the first time (disk controllers and filesystem drivers), but not other hardware specific stuff. You can see it here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~krejzi/basic-kernel.txt Any suggestions or additions are welcome. Cheers. Just a couple of suggestions: Thanks for your input. 1. SATA etc So I select the first two modules below. s/modules/drivers/ - people coming from a distro might be used to building everything as a module and take it too literally. Yeah, that makes sense. I've also added a note at the beginning that everything should be built-in. 2. filesystems - I would be inclined to drop specific mention of reiser3, and cover it by Additionally, any other filesystem not listed here., but perhaps some distro(s) used to use it in the last couple of years. That was first in my mind, but I realised that BLFS still provides fs tools for reiserfs and that's why I added it. I've removed it now though. I guess that defconfig covers almost everything else that is commonly needed to get a bootable .config. ĸen That is mentioned at the beginning. But then again, some might try to strip the kernel as much as possible, that's why I've covered the basics only. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:59:19 +0100 Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl wrote: Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Regards, Frans. Please do not try to ignite a holy war. LFS has been, for the most part, a very peacefull place and I think everyone would like it to stay that way. As for why we would stick to sysvinit? It exposes the underlying gears and pipes to the user. That way, servicing it is easy. The only really good (yet still apologetic) argument for systemd that I heard is that some people do not know shell scripting and for them there is no difference (AKA preference) between systemd and sysvinit - they need to learn either from scratch. Systemd, in my humble opinion, has been paid for, written as is being pushed by Big Server. They ofcourse need it because they can use it to quickly boot virtual machines when they need to and, presumably, manage them all from a single place. For LFS, whose stated mission is to teach people the internals of a Linux system, systemd offers no tangible benefits apart from a dubious line in some (but not all) CV-s (to the effect that so-and-so knows how to configure systemd) yet has a major drawback in the shape of hiding the inner workings of system boot from an LFS reader (because LFS is first and foremost a book). -- Svi moji e-mailovi su kriptografski potpisani. Proverite ih. All of my e-mails are cryptographically signed. Verify them. -- You don't need an AI for a robot uprising. Humans will do just fine. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] error during libstc++ configuring
../gcc-4.8.1/libstdc++-v3/configure \ --host=$BDUX_TGT \ --prefix=/tools \ --disable-multilib \ --disable-shared \ --disable-nls \ --disable-libstdcxx-threads \ --disable-libstdcxx-pch \ --with-gxx-include-dir=/tools/$BDUX_TGT/include/c++/4.8.1 checking if i686-BDUX-linux-gnu-gcc supports -c -o file.o... (cached) yes checking whether the i686-BDUX-linux-gnu-gcc linker (/mnt/bdux/tools/i686-BDUX-linux-gnu/bin/ld) supports shared libraries... yes checking dynamic linker characteristics... configure: error: Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES. What can be the reason? shibly-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:59:19 +0100 From: Frans de Boer fr...@fransdb.nl To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit Dear All, It looks like most Linux distributions are switching to systemd from sysvinit. As Bruce is even one of the (co-?)authors of systemd, the knowledge is already in the house. Why would (x)LFS stick to sysvinit while the rest of the world is moving to systemd? Just to check, were you aware in saying the above, that also Ubuntu/Shuttleworth have now seemingly decided to switch to sysd: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 'Losing graciously' http://www.zdnet.com/after-linux-civil-war-ubuntu-to-adopt-systemd-726373/ 'After Linux civil war, Ubuntu to adopt systemd' http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTYwNDE 'Ubuntu To Abandon Upstart, Switch To Systemd' One silver lining, as noted muchly, is that if there is linux dev input on sysd that is much wider than just the present cabal, then that might accelerate the bashing into shape of it, splitting it apart into genuinely modularised form, extracting and improving the reasonable ideas, letting go the duffs, and generally being less of an asshat's type of software: 'adopting' of course doesn't necessarily mean 'accepting as-is in its present and future upstream forms' indefinitely; folks won't stand for one-way dictats. rgds, akh Of course, simplicity might be one reason. After all sysvinit system is much easier to understand then the somewhat more complex systemd system. However, if everybody was thinking like this, there would be no progress ever. I also think that in order to keep (x)LFS attractive to new followers, the project should go with the flow. Since my days of programming are long past, I can only offer my system resources for (test)building development versions - much as what I do today. Regards, Frans. -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
Frans de Boer wrote: Hm, the reason I posted it in the first place was just because I noticed that Bruce his name was attached to systemd - somewhere. I can't find it any more but still my question stands. That's just a svn version where the editor has not been updated yet. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] error during libstc++ configuring
Em 16-02-2014 13:48, Golam Md. Shibly escreveu: ../gcc-4.8.1/libstdc++-v3/configure \ --host=$BDUX_TGT \ --prefix=/tools \ --disable-multilib \ --disable-shared \ --disable-nls\ --disable-libstdcxx-threads \ --disable-libstdcxx-pch \ --with-gxx-include-dir=/tools/$BDUX_TGT/include/c++/4.8.1 checking if i686-BDUX-linux-gnu-gcc supports -c -o file.o... (cached) yes checking whether the i686-BDUX-linux-gnu-gcc linker (/mnt/bdux/tools/i686-BDUX-linux-gnu/bin/ld) supports shared libraries... yes checking dynamic linker characteristics... configure: error: Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES. What can be the reason? shibly i686-BDUX seems to the cause. You are modifying what is in the book, and this is the second problem, just in the beginning of the tools. It is good, modifications and mistakes, so one learn a lot. But the first time building, just try to copy and paste and only fill the places where asked. I don't know if it's your first time. A frequent mistake is not considering the vii. Host System Requirements. Each line from the output of the script is relevant, difference probably will cause errors somewhere. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/hostreqs.html Probably better to restart. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev
Hi guys, I have an old LFS 6.3 system I'm going to upgrade. I've noticed that LFS-7.4 and CLFS 2.1.0 have two different udev variants. A few questions related to that: - Will CLFS and LFS go different ways in package selection? (udev in particular) - Which one udev variant CLFS Eudev-1.3 or LFS Udev-206 (Extracted from systemd-206) would you recommend? I'm aiming at minimum changes needed while moving from legacy udev. Regards, Alexey -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev
Alexey Orishko wrote: Hi guys, I have an old LFS 6.3 system I'm going to upgrade. I've noticed that LFS-7.4 and CLFS 2.1.0 have two different udev variants. A few questions related to that: - Will CLFS and LFS go different ways in package selection? (udev in particular) - Which one udev variant CLFS Eudev-1.3 or LFS Udev-206 (Extracted from systemd-206) would you recommend? I'm aiming at minimum changes needed while moving from legacy udev. Personally I'd recommend: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/ We are at udev-208. You may also find the following helpful: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/updating-lfs.html -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] LFS-7.5-rc1 is released
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of LFS Version 7.5-rc1. This is the first release candidate on the road to LFS-7.5. It is a major release with toolchain updates to binutils, glibc, and gcc. In total, 32 packages were updated from LFS-7.4 and changes to text has been made throughout the book. We encourage all users to read through this release of the book and test the instructions so that we can make the final release as good as possible. You can read the book online at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/, or download from http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.5-rc1/ to read locally. -- Bruce Dubbs linuxfromscratch.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I'd recommend: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/ Any approximate date for a final release? There are a few issues with a new release for me at this point: - I need a kernel which has a long term support (3.10.x used in LFS-7.4 does) - I've switched from LFS to Cross-LFS and building on 64-bit Intel Core2 for 32-bit Intel Atom... Regards, Alexey -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev
Alexey Orishko wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I'd recommend: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/ Any approximate date for a final release? The target is March 1st. There are a few issues with a new release for me at this point: - I need a kernel which has a long term support (3.10.x used in LFS-7.4 does) - I've switched from LFS to Cross-LFS and building on 64-bit Intel Core2 for 32-bit Intel Atom... For your host, LFS should be fine, but you can substitute 3.10.x. For the Atom, you may want to use CLFS. I don't have any experience with the Atom. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] LFS systemd 7.5-rc1 is out
I am pleased to announce a release candidate for the first release of the Linux From Scratch book that is using systemd as the main init system. The book contains all the changes from LFS-7.5-rc1, along with extra packages that are necessarry for systemd, as well with some packages removed that are still part of standard Linux From Scratch installation. New packages include: Acl-2.2.52 Attr-2.4.47 D-Bus-1.8.0 Expat-2.1.0 Gperf-3.0.4 Intltool-0.50.2 LFS-Network-Scripts 20140214 Libcap-2.24 Systemd-208 XML-Parser-2.42_01 Removed packages include: LFS-Bootscripts-20130821 Sysklogd-1.5 Sysvinit-2.88dsf Udev-208 The book can be read online at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-systemd-rc1/ or it can be downloaded as HTML, HTML-NOCHUNKS and PDF version at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.5-systemd-rc1/ dd7a8768f2c413cc1c94485ede7dea15 LFS-BOOK-7.5-systemd-rc1-NOCHUNKS.html 3d91ca81723a3dcb16d82a3eb8224554 LFS-BOOK-7.5-systemd-rc1.pdf b370e26cba75f2366787b6e1fb634b48 LFS-BOOK-7.5-systemd-rc1.tar.bz2 3c67714167e09c727e3422e20284765d lfs-network-scripts-20140214.tar.bz2 8bdbab37787a687575a30f8463b594af md5sums 4e36d00a4076f201086a8e773f5ac3c6 wget-list All users are encouraged to read through this release of the book and test the instructions so that the final release can be made as good as possible. Thanks to all who have contributed and provided feedback for this hopefully useful piece of work. -- Armin K. Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
