It was pointed out on Greg's DIY-Linux list that make can be used to
print a dependency list - not nearly so beautifully as Nico's
dependency graph, but as a useful list.
I think it should be possible to generate the makefile directly from
the BLFS Book XML, but I'm not competent to do this
Dear List,
the ftp link for CDParanoia-III-9.8 is broken.
The current link is to
ftp://ftp.yars.free.net/pub/software/unix/util/cd/cdparanoia-III-alpha9.8.src.tgz
The site has been rearranged, and this naked tarball has vanished (though it's
probably
buried inside the FreeBSD
Richard A Downing wrote:
The wording and style of the link are more important that the page
position. I'd like it to stand out with a special rendering CSS. If I
have to vote on a section, I'd say Command Explanations, because I
suspect (but could easily be wrong) it's quite likely that the
Hey there.
Here's a couple of things I noticed with the book, and *very*
coincidentally they go hand in hand in terms of my bringing this up.
First off there's a typo (or two? I'm noticing stuff as I go) on the new
BLFS Wiki page:
The name of the page is 'BLFS WiKi', but I don't think the
I wrote:
I am going to take care of the Mozilla - Seamonkey update myself
today, unless there are objections.
Unfortunately, there is an issue with Pango on the CD. While it is
certainly not a showstopper for the CD (because it doesn't support
printing), I would like to resolve it first, as
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 23:52 schrieb Randy McMurchy:
Rainer.wirtz wrote these words on 01/31/06 13:43 CST:
Check them (and k3b) out with
svn co svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/extragear/multimedia
Not to argue, but because I'm actually curious, why would I consider
using SVN
El Miércoles, 1 de Febrero de 2006 03:02, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
There has been some discussion of where to place a link to User Notes on
BLFS pages. After reviewing the messages, I want to get the opinion one
more time from the members of this list so we can standardize.
I vote for placing it
El Miércoles, 1 de Febrero de 2006 10:14, Richard A Downing escribió:
All that is needed is a simple list in the form, e.g.:
libmng: libjpeg lcms
for each package and a blank list for those with no deps.
libjpeg:
lcms:
bc:
all wrapped up with a bit of makefile magic.
You can then
Randy McMurchy wrote:
1) how will this link be presented?
The exact format is tbd.
2) will there be accompanying text?
Not really. Just User Notes: Link
However, an expansion of wiki.xml is reasonable.
3) will it be anything other than a normal external link?
No.
-- Bruce
--
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I count this as a test suite, and
On 2/1/06, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I count
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/06 22:34 CST:
Seems a litle light for a test suite, but there are some others that are
light too. I wouldn't bother to add the test time unless it is
significant, say greater than 0.5 SBU.
I was more looking at advice on
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/01/06 22:54 CST:
OK, the issue then is what are we testing. If it is the build, then
include it. If it is just the packaging, then it is essentially doing
the same thing as the md5 sum and adds no value. In that case, it
should be omitted because it is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some advice on how to interpret many of the GNOME packages
test suites. Many of the packages don't do any real testing of the
build when you run 'make check', but they *will* validate all the
.xml and .omf files running 'make check'.
Should I count
16 matches
Mail list logo
