Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Knowing what software to install is one of the prerequisites. And the needed
versions are satisfied even by such an old distribution as Fedora Core 2.
I.e.: I am glad that it worked for you and that you learned from the project,
but we really expect higher
2008/2/26, Guy Dalziel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't understand how knowing all the software you will need is
considered a prerequisite when the guide itself quite clearly lists
everything you will need. When I first did lfs I was an advanced user
but I had no idea as to the base packages,
The complication I am referring to is the fact that you can build on
some hosts but not on others, there was a table at one point that listed
the distros that had been tested to just such an effect. If someone was
using a distro that was unable to be used as a host system then the user
would
2008/2/26, Guy Dalziel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The complication I am referring to is the fact that you can build on
some hosts but not on others, there was a table at one point that listed
the distros that had been tested to just such an effect. If someone was
using a distro that was unable to
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
20 people expressed their appreciation for the CD, more than half voting
to keep the project around.
Please subtract the number that want to use the LiveCD to cover LFS bugs, don't
realize the inherent incompatibility of LFS with 64-bit hosts (IMHO, the fact
that LFS
Hi,
Thus spake Jeremy Huntwork ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
20 people expressed their appreciation for the CD, more than half
voting to keep the project around.
increase both counters by 1. Thanks for you effort!
So the real question now becomes, where do we go from here?
Before I comment on the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
So we see at least two non-empty camps. One wants a strictly minimal CD, and
one
wants packages beyond it. The most democratic solution would be to make two
CDs (and that's, in fact, the origin of the talks about package management),
but
we don't have enough
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
This is incompatible with the strictly adhere to LFS goal, because LFS has
no
package management except rebuild everything once a day. Note that I make
no
statement about the relative merit of these two incompatible goals.
I
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
~snip~
I could let this thread continue for some more time, but I get the
impression that the ratio of votes will continue approximately the same.
as with the last time this subject came up :)
seems that while majority like the livecd project, getting more support
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:49:06 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
* Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
degrading the quality of LFS)
* If so, is
TheOldFellow wrote:
My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method, AND
have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of managing
updates. THEN, I think ALFS and BLFS should use the chosen PM.
Well this certainly is taking the discussion to the next level. I'm
Just wanted to let you know that ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dhcp/ does not
contain, dhcp-3.0.5.tar.gz but dhcp-3.0.6.tar.gz.
They moved it to the dhcp-3.0-history
(ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dhcp/dhcp-3.0-history/dhcp-3.0.5.tar.gz
(there's also 3.1, and 4.0, and 4.1, but that's for wiser heads then
mine
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 12:37:50 pm TheOldFellow wrote:
My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method,
AND have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of
managing updates. THEN, I think ALFS and BLFS should use the chosen
PM.
I feel these are things
Robert Daniels wrote:
I feel these are things we should definitely integrate from diy-linux.
The new build method is very promising, and will be very helpful for
the future when everyone expects their OS to be 64 bit.
64-bit is already possible with LFS via the jh branch, it is rendered
14 matches
Mail list logo
