Joe Ciccone wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
* pciutils-2.2.4: makes other packages fail to build from source, due to
the change of the proper linker flags from -lpci to -lpci -lz. Definitely
not for the book, but I won't downgrade this package on the CD.
I've just been adding
On 1/11/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the same manner, BLFS could put a note in the Preface saying that
it is focused on Intel-32 bit architectures as is LFS and that other
architectures are covered in CBLFS.
I would like to see that.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org
On 1/13/07, Joe Ciccone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* pciutils-2.2.4: makes other packages fail to build from source, due to
the change of the proper linker flags from -lpci to -lpci -lz. Definitely
not for the book, but I won't downgrade this package on the CD.
I've just been adding
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Joe Ciccone wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
* pciutils-2.2.4: makes other packages fail to build from source, due to
the change of the proper linker flags from -lpci to -lpci -lz. Definitely
not for the book, but I won't downgrade this package on
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Alexander, I don't recall seeing anything about
xorg-server-1.1.1/Mesa-6.5.1 on the xorg list. Just the build fixes.
Any further info? I was thinking about bumping both these guys up. I'm
running xorg-server-1.1.1 and Mesa-6.5.1. I haven't done anything
fancy with it yet,
On Thu, Jan 11, at 07:39 Randy McMurchy wrote:
When folks fork a project, typically it is up front and center that it
is forked code from another project. Typically, you don't have to scour
through obscure pages (your license page which *nobody* will ever visit
as an example) to find
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
With that in mind and it's the third time I am writing this(I hope the
last one),I would like to see BCLFS to be officially a part of BLFS and its
developers as BLFS developers.
And that is a proposal.
What the community has to say about this?
CBLFS doesn't have
the community has to say about this?
CBLFS doesn't have a fixed set of developers, It's really just a matter
of navigating to the page you want, clicking edit at the top of the
page, making your change, and hitting submit.
So do you really agree with the wiki?
I mean there is no credibility,you
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 01/14/07 17:10 CST:
And that is a proposal.
What the community has to say about this?
I don't have a clue who all the devs at CBLFS are. They all use
some stage-names. I know there's Jim, Jeremy U and Joe. But
after that, I have no idea. Here's what I
On Sun, Jan 14, at 05:23 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 01/14/07 17:10 CST:
And that is a proposal.
What the community has to say about this?
I don't have a clue who all the devs at CBLFS are. They all use
some stage-names. I know there's Jim, Jeremy U
providing detail
instructions and supporting text. It disappoints me that it is cut
and pasted into a different project (I don't buy that crap about
brother/sister/child/whatever you said) without even attribution.
Nowhere in the CBLFS book could I find something such as:
Special thanks go out
On Sun, Jan 14, at 05:36 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 01/14/07 17:29 CST:
Forgive me that I speak to you in public like so,but I know that you
have a thick skin.
Did you say something I should be offended or upset about? If so, I
suppose I missed it. :-)
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
So do you really agree with the wiki?
I mean there is no credibility,you have to have some.
It's in the page history. That is enough for me.
Look Joe,I don't see a f* reason why you and my friend ken,can't be a
part of BLFS.
I truly believe that.
I
On Sun, Jan 14, at 05:53 Joe Ciccone wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
So do you really agree with the wiki?
I mean there is no credibility,you have to have some.
It's in the page history. That is enough for me.
I won't argue with you.
I simple don't believe to the wiki
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/13/07 01:36 CST:
Please keep in mind that the notes below are skewed in the sense that they
recommend a change if it fixes a compatibility issue with LFS SVN (even if
there is no problem with LFS-6.2).
After re-reading your email I have further
Randy McMurchy wrote:
* Mesa-6.5.1, libdrm-2.0.2: Status: everybody seems to do this update on
their own, but xorg-devel archives suggest that some patches to
xorg-server-1.1.1 are needed beyond simple build fixes (and this part is not
done on the CD). So, probably not for the book.
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/13/07 03:40 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
You would be the one to do it. Please accept the request to join the
team.
Accepted
Bruce, could could you please handle this at your earliest
convenience? Additionally, please notify Alexander and this
On Σαβ, Ιαν 13, at 02:40 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
* reiserfsprogs-3.6.19: fails to build with LFS SVN. Please install
asm/unaligned.h with linux headers in LFS.
Alexander, you are the man! Jump in and do what you think is best.
This (as far as I understand, and as implemented
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
1. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/patches/2006-October/003347.html
Thanks, do you know any other package that breaks because of asm/unaligned.h?
2. http://lostclus.linux.kiev.ua/patches/all/vim70-langmapmb-4.patch
Yes, I see how this can be useful. But there
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
2. http://lostclus.linux.kiev.ua/patches/all/vim70-langmapmb-4.patch
Yes, I see how this can be useful. But there are other vim patches with
similar names there, what's the difference? What's the upstream status?
According to
On Σαβ, Ιαν 13, at 03:30 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
1. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/patches/2006-October/003347.html
Thanks, do you know any other package that breaks because of asm/unaligned.h?
I believe it's the only one.
2.
On Σαβ, Ιαν 13, at 03:38 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
2. http://lostclus.linux.kiev.ua/patches/all/vim70-langmapmb-4.patch
Yes, I see how this can be useful. But there are other vim patches with
similar names there, what's the difference? What's the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
* Mesa-6.5.1, libdrm-2.0.2: Status: everybody seems to do this update on
their own, but xorg-devel archives suggest that some patches to
xorg-server-1.1.1 are needed beyond simple build fixes (and this part is not
done on the CD). So, probably not for the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/11/07 23:13 CST:
The point is that the Vim-7.0 bug is trivial (just apply patches from the
development LFS and pay attention to
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1937), and already open for more
than 6 months. This gives food to the
Randy McMurchy wrote:
If a regarded community member were to say I've installed it and
it works as it is supposed to, that is good enough for me.
Please keep in mind that the notes below are skewed in the sense that they
recommend a change if it fixes a compatibility issue with LFS SVN (even
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
On the LFS LiveCD 6.2-4 and/or 6.3-pre1, the following beyond-planned-6.2.0
package updates are already done:
I meant beyond-current-SVN, sorry.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/13/07 01:36 CST:
Please keep in mind that the notes below are skewed in the sense that they
recommend a change if it fixes a compatibility issue with LFS SVN (even if
there is no problem with LFS-6.2).
[snip a whole bunch]
Alexander, your
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
Best I can tell, there is not even a mention that the CBLFS book is
using material
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
Best I can tell, there is not even a mention
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
Best I can tell, there is not even a mention
is appropriate and putting it into CBLFS. In fact,
that is allowed by the license.
I see the note: Please don't add information from BLFS. BLFS is
copyrighted.
To me that is not necessary. What I'd like to see is a note that BLFS
and CBLFS are separate, but cooperating, projects and several (many
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
A little off-topic: I thought it was a little funny
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:04 CST:
Bruce,
We are all part of LFS, the only reason I put in that notice was to
let people know not to copy your material. Essentially we were told by
BLFS that you would not support multilib and other architectures, we
took care of it
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:04 CST:
Bruce,
We are all part of LFS, the only reason I put in that notice was to
let people know not to copy your material. Essentially we were told by
BLFS that you would not support multilib and other
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted on the CBLFS page is a note that says not to copy from the BLFS
book as it may violate the copyright. But I can't help but notice that
many of the descriptions, etc are copied directly from BLFS.
A little off-topic: I
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:48 CST:
Randy, we already do.
Jim, it is not worth haggling over. I simply mentioned this earlier
as a matter of principle. Your attribution does not adhere to the
BLFS license, but so what.
If you don't want to give attribution to the BLFS team in
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Jim,
Randy's the lead now, but I can see some of your point, but not all.
BLFS is a community effort too. I personally don't mind you taking
whatever you think is appropriate and putting it into CBLFS. In fact,
that is allowed by the license.
No it's not. BLFS
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 16:48 CST:
Randy, we already do.
Jim, it is not worth haggling over. I simply mentioned this earlier
as a matter of principle. Your attribution does not adhere to the
BLFS license, but so what.
If you don't want to
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 19:19 CST:
I want to understand what you want here. BLFS is part of LFS, we
represent the LFS license and the BLFS license in our books saying that
we are adapted from that. If you feel you need more representation, show
me what you want. I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/11/07 11:04 CST:
Everything else is just dead and, in the worst case, should be removed
before 6.2.0. I am talking about the Vim page, too.
I'm not sure what Alexander is driving at, but the Vim-7.0 update is
tagged as
40 matches
Mail list logo
