On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
If you really want to be helpful, why don't you see if the current commands
work
with the new package. A review of the *key* changes in your own words would be
helpful. For instance, it looks like they added a
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:06:01 -0600, William Immendorf
will.immend...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to be impatient, however. So keep that in mind.
And we tend to ignore impatient people who are unwilling/unable to help
contribute
to the books or support thereof. So keep that in mind.
Honestly,
Hi all,
This is mostly to Ken, as he created the Jasper page, but anyone else
with comments are welcomed to reply.
My question is:
Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional?
I perhaps can see libjpeg support being recommended, but I cannot see
why. It is linked to the
And now, given that, I hereby promise not to feed the troll anymore.
I am not a troll, BTW. I am a austic guy.
But I will still help.
William
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08:17PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
This is mostly to Ken, as he created the Jasper page, but anyone else
with comments are welcomed to reply.
My question is:
Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional?
To me, they look like
Ken Moffat wrote:
I can also understand _never_ recommending dependencies. Ever.
that isn't how BLFS currently works.
Why? What's wrong with an editor recommending a dependency? It's basically
saying that the package will have significantly (in the editor's opinion) less
functionality or
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/24/09 16:54 CST:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08:17PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional?
To me, they look like a good idea.
This is a technical book. Could you provide some technical details
why
Randy McMurchy wrote:
What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no.
Umm
[gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3
i686]
Doesn't much look like LFS-6.4. ;-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:04 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no.
Umm
[gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux
2.6.14.3 i686]
Doesn't much look like LFS-6.4. ;-)
What's with the Umm...
On Wed, Feb 25, at 12:21 BLFS Trac wrote:
#2720: Cairo-1.8.6
+---
Reporter: ra...@… | Owner: k...@…
Type: task| Status: assigned
On Tue, Feb 24, at 07:28 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:14 CST:
In that case, could you comment on:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2664#comment:2
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2580#comment:1
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:33 CST:
It was just your expression (about an editor's interest to upgrade a
package).
You said:
We don't sit on package versions when there is Editor interest to update it
That's all, no big deal.
Now I see a correlation. As
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 20:14 CST:
On Tue, Feb 24, at 07:57 Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm thinking it's better to leave this one alone, but since there's
a distinct item Ag leaves out, it needs to be said.
Ticket 2539: Same as the previous one. And again obsolete
New version of Samba, mainly a bugfix release.
Release notes are here: http://samba.org/samba/history/samba-3.3.1.html
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 02/24/09 18:32 CST:
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/24/09 16:54 CST:
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
11:55:00 up 17 days, 4:18, 1 user, load average:
Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion?
Thinking out loud at the keyboard.
So do I have to thinking loud also?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tuesday February 24 2009 10:22:35 pm Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion?
Thinking out loud at the keyboard.
So do I have to thinking loud also?
Gentlemen please. We're all on the same team here. Some of us are overzealous,
and some
Hi Robert,
it's late morning (here) of a day that looks cold.
On Tue, Feb 24, at 11:20 Robert Connolly wrote:
On Tuesday February 24 2009 10:22:35 pm Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion?
Thinking out loud at the keyboard.
So do I
18 matches
Mail list logo
