On 11/2/2011 5:07 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
For instance subversion really goes with programming
more than networking; TCP Wrappers goes more with either System
Utilities or Security; etc.
I'd just like to mention that I mildly disagree on both counts,
especially Subversion. For instance, we use
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Randy McMurchy
ra...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
I'd just like to mention that I mildly disagree on both counts,
especially Subversion. For instance, we use Subversion to track
the changes of our own books, which has nothing to do with
programming. I could name
Randy McMurchy wrote:
On 11/2/2011 5:07 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
For instance subversion really goes with programming
more than networking; TCP Wrappers goes more with either System
Utilities or Security; etc.
I'd just like to mention that I mildly disagree on both counts,
especially
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
While we're on the subject, I noticed recently that cmake is in the
system utilities section. It's intended use is as a build system for
programming, so it could be argued that it does belong in the
programming section. It's a language for describing the build process
On 11/4/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Besides, building LFS/BLFS *is* programming. You still go through an
edit, build, check process. The output of a programming process is not
always executable code.
Not at all trying to argue, but for the sake of discussion I think it is
a stretch to
Ken Moffat wrote:
I agree that version-control packages are used for a lot more than
programming, and that tcp wrappers can be in either place. But for
cmake, I have to mildly disagree (mildly, because I no-longer build
it, and would need extremely strong reasons to build it again) -
in
Randy McMurchy wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Besides, building LFS/BLFS *is* programming. You still go through an
edit, build, check process. The output of a programming process is not
always executable code.
Not at all trying to argue, but for the sake of discussion I
On 11/4/2011 1:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
{,un}zip: System Utilities - General Libraries
pkg-config - Programming
?
I'm lost with these changes. I'd bet for every time the zip
library is used, the (un)zip utils are used 20 times.
And how does pkg-config fit with
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:44:33PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Besides, building LFS/BLFS *is* programming. You still go through an
edit, build, check process. The output of a programming process is not
always executable code.
Not at all trying
Randy McMurchy wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
{,un}zip: System Utilities - General Libraries
pkg-config - Programming
?
I'm lost with these changes. I'd bet for every time the zip
library is used, the (un)zip utils are used 20 times.
Yes, I
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:44:33PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
On 11/4/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Besides, building LFS/BLFS *is* programming. You still go through an
edit, build, check process. The output of a programming process is not
always executable code.
Not
On Nov 4, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
I see no use at all of pkg-config outside of programming.
It's definitely connected to programming, but then so is glibc,
binutils and gcc. But I don't think I'd classify them under a
programming label. Pkg-config is a
On 11/4/2011 6:27 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Still, both sides of the argument have valid points. Perhaps
programming is too broad a term.
Agreed. There should be a programming languages section, and then
perhaps a programming tools section. Combining them is simply
confusing.
I've been around
Randy McMurchy wrote:
On 11/4/2011 6:27 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Still, both sides of the argument have valid points. Perhaps
programming is too broad a term.
Agreed. There should be a programming languages section, and then
perhaps a programming tools section. Combining them is simply
Ken Moffat schrieb:
This is basically for Bruce - he wants to get dhcp-4.2.3 working
for LFS-7.0, so here are my experiences with dhcp-4.2.2 on LFS-6.8.
For those with a long memory, I *had to* move to recent dhcp-4.2
because the older versions don't build on linux 3.X. I have no need
Ken Moffat wrote:
This is basically for Bruce - he wants to get dhcp-4.2.3 working
for LFS-7.0, so here are my experiences with dhcp-4.2.2 on LFS-6.8.
Thanks Ken. I'll factor this into the BLFS updates when I get to the
networking packages. I'm working programming right now.
I'll work
16 matches
Mail list logo
