On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:44:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
At the moment, I'm still trying to rip a classical CD in cdparanoia
on one of my machines (been running for about 66 hours so far,
reporting a lot of non-recoverable errors, but its been _nearly_
done for
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:18:53AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:57:08AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
Actually, seahorse is why I'm replying now (was goingto wait a
bit). I've got a build order for totem (on top of my completed
desktop), but seahorse doesn't get
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
We can do that, but I'd want to minimize the freeze time due to the
upstream churn rate.
At
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
We can do that, but I'd want to minimize the freeze time due to the
upstream churn
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:44:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
We can do that,
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:57:08AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
Actually, seahorse is why I'm replying now (was goingto wait a
bit). I've got a build order for totem (on top of my completed
desktop), but seahorse doesn't get pulled in. So I took a look at
the book. I _think_ seahorse can now
, and it may
still be a bit early to tell what September will bring, but with the
renewed interest of old editors and the new talent that has come aboard,
we are at the point where a BLFS *release* is actually possible again.
I'm not suggesting following the point releases of LFS, but I think
On 01/19/2011 07:36 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 01/18/2011 03:35 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
pages/packages for KDE4
If you do, please try to use package versions that are
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/20/11 01:09 CST:
Thanks, I'll commit it.
Good work, Thomas. Thanks. Would you review my replies to your commit
message in the blfs-book list? There are a couple of things we need
to do.
Something else I forgot to mention. It appears you did not set the
On 01/18/2011 01:53 PM, Thomas Trepl wrote:
When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
pages/packages for KDE4 but it would not make really sense when the release is
right in front of the door.
CMake is quite a strange thing and indeed, many doesn't like it (me
On 01/18/2011 03:35 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
pages/packages for KDE4
If you do, please try to use package versions that are known compatible
with everything else
Hi all,
On Tuesday 18 January 2011 21:59:34 Randy McMurchy wrote:
...
I'd like to contribute here, but again, it wouldn't make sense just right
before a release is planed. So, should I commit the cmake-page now?
By all means. CMake is going to happen, like it or not. If you have a
page
Hi all,
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:57:25 Randy McMurchy wrote:
...
Sections 26-28: KDE
Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a more than two
year old desktop that I don't even know if anyone has been following for
security patches. Nobody likes CMake and KDE4.x (well,
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
pages/packages for KDE4 but it would not make really sense when the release
is
right in front of the door.
... So lets start... There is a lot of knowledge out
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/18/11 15:19 CST:
The target date for LFS is currently March 1 (about 6 weeks from now).
We could move it if you want to do a coordinated release.
It would be nice to get BLFS-6.7 out before March 1, and we would be
current for at least a few days. I don't
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/18/11 15:19 CST:
The target date for LFS is currently March 1 (about 6 weeks from now).
We could move it if you want to do a coordinated release.
It would be nice to get BLFS-6.7 out before March 1, and we would be
current for at
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:23:53PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/18/11 15:19 CST:
The target date for LFS is currently March 1 (about 6 weeks from now).
We could move it if you want to do a coordinated release.
It would be nice
DJ Lucas wrote:
I'm sure right behind it is relative to LFS release of 6.8 (KDE4 will
still be a monster no matter when that date is).
LFS 6.8 is Scheduled for March. We're trying to make releases in March
and September each year.
-- Bruce
--
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13, DJ Lucas d...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure I'll
wind up rebuilding anyway at some point. Next
Robert Xu rob...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13, DJ Lucas d...@linuxfromscratch.org
wrote:
On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure
I'll
wind up
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:45, DJ Lucas d...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
Robert Xu rob...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13, DJ Lucas d...@linuxfromscratch.org
wrote:
On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
I'm using
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/19/10 18:00 CST:
Sorry to resurrect a 15 day old thread, but are we set in stone on 6.7
then? It is unfortunate, but I've just started on current SVN thinking
we were shooting for a 6.8 simultaneous release.
I don't think there is enough difference to worry
On 11/21/2010 01:55 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/19/10 18:00 CST:
Sorry to resurrect a 15 day old thread, but are we set in stone on 6.7
then? It is unfortunate, but I've just started on current SVN thinking
we were shooting for a 6.8 simultaneous release.
I
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure I'll
wind up rebuilding anyway at some point. Next question is whether I
should revisit the update to Xorg-7.6. I think I'm going to go ahead and
push forward with it. A lot of
On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure I'll
wind up rebuilding anyway at some point. Next question is whether I
should revisit the update to Xorg-7.6. I think I'm going
On 11/05/2010 12:18 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:23:02AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
And what version should we target? I see there being two choices. Target
for 6.7 and release as soon as we can. Or, target for 6.8 and coincide
our release with the next LFS release.
On 05/11/10 10:23, DJ Lucas wrote:
Wayne, have you looked at 2.32 yet? If not, I'm good with staying on
2.30.2. We need to make a decision on how to handle the optional prefix
though. Should it go in the dumpster? I'll be happy to go over the
existing instructions and fix any side issues for
Should we consider LibreOffice?
Last time it came up (as Go-oo who has now rolled into the Libre
envelope -- something akin to the Mozilla Foundation), we had one
objection to Novell's input and mono (which can easily be disabled) and
nobody backing me for it at all. I went back to raw OOo
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/04/10 18:23 CST:
I'm sure there are some other minor things laying around, but they will
get picked up as we start to blast through it. I can't believe we are
actually discussing a release! That's just cool!
And what version should we target? I see there being
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:23:02AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
And what version should we target? I see there being two choices. Target
for 6.7 and release as soon as we can. Or, target for 6.8 and coincide
our release with the next LFS release.
I'd prefer to target 6.7 and as soon as we
it), so what to do?
Sections 29-30: GNOME
We are fairly current, but if 6 months goes by without a BLFS release,
it would be considered an old desktop. We are at 2.30.2, 2.32 has
already been released and in 6 months 3.0 will have been released.
Sections 31-34:
These programs and applications
, but if 6 months goes by without a BLFS release,
it would be considered an old desktop. We are at 2.30.2, 2.32 has
already been released and in 6 months 3.0 will have been released.
Keep 3.0 seperate from 2.32 when you update them. 3.0 is radically different.
Sections 31-34:
These programs
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 12:00:05PM -0400, Robert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 09:57, Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org
wrote:
Sections 26-28: KDE
Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a more than two
year old desktop that I don't even know if anyone has been
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 18:04, Ken Moffat k...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 12:00:05PM -0400, Robert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 09:57, Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org
wrote:
Sections 26-28: KDE
Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 08:57:25AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
I would sure like to see a new version of BLFS released.
[...]
Here's my take on the state of
BLFS. I am encouraging everyone to contribute to this discussion because
I have been out of the loop for so long.
Section
Ken Moffat wrote:
I'd also like to see xz here (/me ducks behind a blast-proof wall)
because packages are starting to move to this instead of bzip2, and
it will allow up to use the smaller versions - it can replace lzma.
Actually, I'm planning on adding it to LFS.
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 06:12:11PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
I'd also like to see xz here (/me ducks behind a blast-proof wall)
because packages are starting to move to this instead of bzip2, and
it will allow up to use the smaller versions - it can replace lzma.
scripts)
and hopefully, we'll have a new Xorg soon so we can drop quite a few
packages and the remaining configuration issues.
Sections 29-30: GNOME
We are fairly current, but if 6 months goes by without a BLFS release,
it would be considered an old desktop. We are at 2.30.2, 2.32 has
already been
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/04/10 18:23 CST:
Welcome back...officially!
Thanks, DJ. And thank you for keeping up with things in my absence.
Perhaps my break away from BLFS and a new outlook, perspective and
goals in my life have diluted the poison. :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something official
this evening.
Didn't get around to it yesterday. I'll update Rsync today and
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something official
this evening.
Didn't get around
Hi all,
since I'm new to the editors group (or for any other reason) I may have missed
something, so don't hit me too hard for the following question(s).
It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin in
case of a version update, right? That dir is
Thomas Trepl wrote:
Hi all,
since I'm new to the editors group (or for any other reason) I may have
missed
something, so don't hit me too hard for the following question(s).
It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin
in
case of a version update,
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
The real problem with it is, if we keep holding for every version
increment, we'll never get 6.3 out the door.
And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
errata
page, without the team tracking security issues
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
The real problem with it is, if we keep holding for every version
increment, we'll never get 6.3 out the door.
And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
errata
page, without the team
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 05/09/08 01:07 CST:
It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin
in
case of a version update, right? That dir is /srv/ftp/BLFS/
If i understood this thread right, we need to keep that directories uptodate
since there is
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/09/08 05:00 CST:
I do not want to get into a situation where if someone follows
LFS stable, we need to tell them to pull SVN sources from XYZ
day and render it yourself in order to find a combination of
packages that is compatible with one-another.
I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I do not want to get into a situation where if someone follows
LFS stable, we need to tell them to pull SVN sources from XYZ
day and render it yourself in order to find a combination of
packages that is compatible with one-another.
The compatibility problem automatically
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 05/09/08 01:10 CST:
And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
errata
page, without the team tracking security issues and bugs, it will be just a
snapshot, not a proper distro release. Maybe versionless BLFS (i.e.,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 05/09/08 01:07 CST:
It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin
in
case of a version update, right? That dir is /srv/ftp/BLFS/
If i understood this thread right, we need to keep that directories
DJ Lucas wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 05/08/08 11:53 CST:
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:50:44PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
Actually, I just ran across another one...and it's fixed now...I think.
auxfiles/firefox-2.0.0.14-mozconfig. Anything special I need to do with
that or the wget and md5 files?
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Randy McMurchy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 05/08/08 11:53 CST:
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:50:44PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
Actually, I just ran across another one...and it's fixed now...I think.
auxfiles/firefox-2.0.0.14-mozconfig.
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/08/08 13:11 CST:
I'm sorry this has inconvenienced you so much, but it addresses a real
problem.
It doesn't inconvenience me as I know how to create a .mozconfig
file on my own to build Firefox. :-)
Though I still don't know what the real problem was (as
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Randy McMurchy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/08/08 13:11 CST:
I'm sorry this has inconvenienced you so much, but it addresses a real
problem.
It doesn't inconvenience me as I know how to create a .mozconfig
file on my own to
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/08/08 13:52 CST:
For mozconfig files, it's not that big of an issue. However, suppose
we release BLFS-6.3 with firefox-2.0.0.14. After branching off 6.3, we
change the svn firefox to use a different --enable-* option, say for
cairo. If the files on anduin
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Randy McMurchy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never looked at it like that. Again, very valid. Looks like I
need to svn co those auxfiles. My sandbox is just 'BOOK' and I've
never needed to update the auxfiles so never co them.
Ah, now I see why you didn't like it. I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Now I'm going to work on Justin to see if he is around so he'll
fix the main BLFS repo to have a 6.3 repo populated with all the
current SVN packages (as per the current SVN book), then create
symlinks pointing to that named 6.3rc1, 6.3rc2, and 6.3rc3.
I did create a
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 16:39 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Now I'm going to work on Justin to see if he is around so he'll
fix the main BLFS repo to have a 6.3 repo populated with all the
current SVN packages (as per the current SVN book), then create
symlinks pointing to
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:31:18PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Ah, now I see why you didn't like it. I guess it's like the patches
repo. Most of the time I don't want the whole freaking repo on my
disk, but every once in a while it's nice to actually have them there.
After doing checkouts as
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 16:39 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Now I'm going to work on Justin to see if he is around so he'll
fix the main BLFS repo to have a 6.3 repo populated with all the
current SVN packages (as per the current SVN book), then create
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
No. I disabled the rsync some time ago as the last time the master was
updated
was sometime in December. If Justin's server gets updated, I can easily
re-enable the rsync.
At this point, why not just make anduin your master ftp server?
--
JH
--
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:00 CST:
No. I disabled the rsync some time ago as the last time the master was
updated
was sometime in December. If Justin's server gets updated, I can easily
re-enable the rsync.
Well, I'll be darned. I thought I read in the messages back
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
At this point, why not just make anduin your master ftp server?
The whole problem was that, as a whole, the BLFS editing team
failed to do what we were supposed to (make updates on Anduin
after updating packages). I was the ringleader of
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
At this point, why not just make anduin your master ftp server?
The whole problem was that, as a whole, the BLFS editing team
failed to do what we were supposed to (make updates on Anduin
after updating
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:00 CST:
No. I disabled the rsync some time ago as the last time the master was
updated
was sometime in December. If Justin's server gets updated, I can easily
re-enable the rsync.
Well, I'll be darned. I thought I
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
Man, I'm losing it. I'm going to check the archives right now to actually
see what was said. I just thought *for sure* that is what I read.
Well, turns out I'm sorta right, for whatever that is worth. :-)
On April 1, Justin wrote in to
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:15 CST:
There's got to be a way to do this automagically. Either via a cron job
or a post-commit hook. If you want, I can look into it for you.
Probably for 95% of the packages, it could be done. A simple comparison
of book versus repo, and use
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
Man, I'm losing it. I'm going to check the archives right now to actually
see what was said. I just thought *for sure* that is what I read.
Well, turns out I'm sorta right, for whatever that is worth. :-)
On
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thanks for offering to help out, Jeremy. :-)
No problem. I'd have to re-familiarize myself with the BLFS source and
anduin's configuration...
Bruce, do I have privileges on anduin to do this sort of work?
--
JH
--
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Sure. I started rsync manually.
rsync -lprt --delete rsync.osuosl.org::blfs /srv/ftp/BLFS
It is taking some time. I'll let you know what the results were.
The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
-- Bruce
Missing
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
I sent a message to Justin asking if he wants to collaborate using an
automated system. Waiting to hear from him...
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
s/not/now/
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
s/not/now/
Heh, funny how one letter makes a huge difference sometimes, eh?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
We are down to 4 tickets outstanding for 6.3:
2526Inconsistency about Xorg prefix [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2527Xorg - remove lbxproxy and proxymngr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2518Xorg-7.2 libXfont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2504rsync-3.0.2 [EMAIL
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008 08:20:28 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
...
Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
...
++
--
Thomas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs schrieb:
We are down to 4 tickets outstanding for 6.3:
2526 Inconsistency about Xorg prefix [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2527 Xorg - remove lbxproxy and proxymngr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2518 Xorg-7.2 libXfont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2504 rsync-3.0.2
77 matches
Mail list logo
