DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/24/05 00:00 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I have got Cracklib-2.8.3 ready to commit. I also finished the patch.
Would you like me to commit the update?
Yeah, go ahead and do it if you've already indexed and described the new
programs in /usr/sbin.
Yes, this is
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 16:38 CST:
I have just gone through bugzilla and marked packages for BLFS 6.1.
Right now there are 56 (out of 83 open) showing a target milestone of 6.1
If anyone thinks that a bug's target milestone should be upgraded to 6.1
(or delayed back to
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 18:48 CST:
I used the following standard CMMI for installation and did not run
into any problems. (That is I did not run the aclocal, automake,
autoconf commands before running configure).
Well, I cannot explain this then.
Someone put this
David Jensen wrote these words on 07/24/05 19:00 CST:
It bombs here also. However it looks like this fixes it:
ln -sf /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh .
The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not
exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas?
We could play
On 07/24/05 19:00:24, David Jensen wrote:
The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not
exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas?
This leads to more questions. Should there be links
/usr/share/automake-automake-1.9
/usr/share/aclocal-aclocal-1.9
It seems a
On 07/24/05 19:12:06, David Jensen wrote:
On 07/24/05 19:00:24, David Jensen wrote:
The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does
not exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas?
This leads to more questions. Should there be links
/usr/share/automake-automake-1.9
David Jensen wrote:
On 07/24/05 19:00:24, David Jensen wrote:
The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not
exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas?
This leads to more questions. Should there be links
/usr/share/automake-automake-1.9
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 18:22 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Hi:
Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The
included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we
don't need the automake patch.
--Tushar.
Does this ring any bells:
Okay, this should be easy enough. Just which solution is better? Add
/var/run/proftpd to createfiles, or modify proftpd to use /var/run. I
lean toward the modification to use /var/run. What say the group?
http://blfs-bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=786
-- DJ Lucas
--
On 7/24/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Pegg wrote these words on 07/24/05 20:58 CST:
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 18:22 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Hi:
Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The
included configure file worked for me. If we don't
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:01 CST:
This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2005-July/052280.html.
I will go on record as being against this proposal. Seems like Tush
and I have been
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:06 CST:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Okay, this should be easy enough. Just which solution is better? Add
/var/run/proftpd to createfiles, or modify proftpd to use /var/run. I
lean toward the modification to use /var/run. What say the group?
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2005-July/052280.html.
I'm really not anxious to add those packages to BLFS, if for no other
reason than division of labor between the LFS
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:21 CST:
Also IMO, LFS should provide a fairly full ability to build other
packages and that includes flex and autotools as well as m4, tcl, make,
perl, and bison.
Be careful here. Tcl is not installed in LFS.
Are you suggesting that it get moved
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:21 CST:
Also IMO, LFS should provide a fairly full ability to build other
packages and that includes flex and autotools as well as m4, tcl, make,
perl, and bison.
Be careful here. Tcl is not installed in LFS.
Are you
I see docbook-utils-0.6.14 installs its docs in
/usr/share/doc/html/docbook-utils-0.6.14
sed -i 's:/html::' doc/HTML/Makefile.in
That moves it to /usr/share/doc/docbook-utils-0.6.14.
If there are no objections, I will commit it.
--
David Jensen
--
Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/24/05 22:38 CST:
Okay, this should be easy enough. Just which solution is better? Add
/var/run/proftpd to createfiles, or modify proftpd to use /var/run. I
lean toward the modification to use /var/run. What say the group?
Hmmm...
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:06 CST:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Okay, this should be easy enough. Just which solution is better? Add
/var/run/proftpd to createfiles, or modify proftpd to use /var/run. I
lean toward the modification to use /var/run. What say the
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:46 CST:
Instead of aclocal automake -acf autoconf, I plan to change it
to autoreconf -f -i. It achives the same end result with fewer
keystrokes. Comments?
There are over 80 bugs in BLFS and you want to refine a package where
the instructions
On 7/25/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Tush,
You wrote:
IMO, the autotools are never required unless you are building software
of CVS HEAD. For all released packages the generated files are
included with the package.
Also, only LFSers who maintain packages need
On 7/19/05, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that it would be reasonable to put the parameters presented
into the host.def file as defines, but leave them commented out. There
should also be an explanation in the same place.
Tushar, since you brought up the issue, how about
On 7/9/05, Tushar Teredesai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To have a switch that is explained as this disables building the
documentation as a default, and then a bit later a note that says
to install the documentation just plain seems
On 7/24/05, David Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/24/05 16:42:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
In my opinion, the book is stable now, and could be released as
is (just a couple of package updates first). Adding almost 50
package updates right before a *major* release is just asking
for
23 matches
Mail list logo
