-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christoph Berg wrote:
Am Sonntag 26 Juli 2009 03:14 schrieben Sie:
snip
I will also be adding all the new dependency packages first. The one
concern I do have however is policykit. Namely around how the daemon is
set up (which I presume there is
Am Sonntag 26 Juli 2009 03:14 schrieben Sie:
snip
I will also be adding all the new dependency packages first. The one
concern I do have however is policykit. Namely around how the daemon is
set up (which I presume there is one). I just cannot find enough
documentation on this. Are there any
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:03:13 -0500, Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org
wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/25/09 08:48 CST:
Finally, in light of the amount of work needed to be done, current LFS
editors should be given access to BLFS (if they don't have it already).
Anything that
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:44:29PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Tobias has sent a personal apology via email to me. His apology is
accepted. He made good points in his post. In fact, the BDB rejection
may have been a bit steep by Guy. But let's get past all that.
I don't consider it that
Guy Dalziel wrote:
I don't consider it that steep, a little bit of testing never hurt
anyone. The most basic test we do is to make sure that things compile
together, and we tend to leave things to people who actually use them,
that way they'll be compiling them anyway. If we had more
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/25/09 08:48 CST:
We absolutely need a way to track the pages that have been touched by a
quick glance approach.
I disagree. I will go through every package and either update Trac or
add packages to it as I discover they are out of date. We'll use the Trac
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/25/09 09:03 CST:
Yes, I don't want to update pages in the book saying it works with
such and such. Let's just use Trac. I will ensure each package is
accounted for.
Please keep in mind that even though I've said I can't promise to do
any updates, doesn't
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/25/09 09:10 CST:
Please keep in mind that even though I've said I can't promise to do
any updates, doesn't mean I'm not building up a 6.5 box.
But I'm going to wait until there is a real package freeze for 6.5.
Which I believe means waiting until there is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
You're only talking about Matt, and he's had BLFS access for years.
Oops, I thought that I had seen updates from Chris, Jeremy, and a couple
of others recently. Seems my memory has failed. Reviewing LFS-Book, I
see that does seem to be the case.
-- DJ Lucas
--
This
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:48:52PM -, DJ Lucas wrote:
behind. I've just started over _again_ with the addition of gcc-4.4.1.
Seeing that gawk has known breakage with some packages, I'm going to
rebuild gawk quick to account for that change as well (I'm sure a full LFS
build will occur by
Guy Dalziel schrieb:
Don't worry, you're not alone. I'm just about to finish building what
will, hopefully, be the 6.5 LFS release. I used Gawk 3.1.7 and all the
testsuites performed within expected parameters. 3 tests in 3.1.7 failed
during the temp build but they all passed during the
Guy Dalziel schrieb:
I don't consider it that steep, a little bit of testing never hurt
anyone. The most basic test we do is to make sure that things compile
together, and we tend to leave things to people who actually use them,
i had no problem with your statement. assuming an update can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
DJ Lucas wrote:
Guy Dalziel wrote:
snip
I've read previously that Wayne is interested in Gnome as well so he and I
can work together on that one. In fact, Wayne, if you are anxious to get
going on that, go ahead and take that ticket from me when
as the current BLFS is quite outdated, i propose another approach to get
the book up to date.
i guess there are to many outdated packages which are dependencies for
others. fixing one package requires to rebuild another bunch of packages
where one or another can't be built as it depends on some
Tobias Gasser wrote these words on 07/24/09 15:51 CST:
[snip fairly useful, but nothing that we would do, information]
i don't want to offend anybody, and i really appreciate the work all the
authors are doeing. but the current state of the book is just [censored]
And after this comment, I
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/24/09 16:28 CST:
[snip getting ugly stuff]
Tobias has sent a personal apology via email to me. His apology is
accepted. He made good points in his post. In fact, the BDB rejection
may have been a bit steep by Guy. But let's get past all that.
BLFS is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Update, update, update. Let's everyone get on the ball. Send in
patches and recommendations. Keep the flow of information coming.
My suggestion is to try to look at the base libraries first. They have the
fewest dependencies, although there are cases of circular
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/09 18:03 CST:
I think we do need to mark each package with some sort of indication about
when
it was last reviewed. We do have a Last updated on: tag, but that's not
always
the best indication because it is automatically updated for things like
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/09 18:03 CST:
I think we do need to mark each package with some sort of indication about
when
it was last reviewed. We do have a Last updated on: tag, but that's not
always
the best indication because it is automatically
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Randy McMurchy
ra...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/24/09 16:28 CST:
[snip getting ugly stuff]
Tobias has sent a personal apology via email to me. His apology is
accepted. He made good points in his post. In fact, the BDB
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I understand your point, but I was thinking of the future. It's true that
any
package we update now should be against 6.5. The absence of a line that
says
Last Reviewed means that it was before 6.5.
In the future, if we get behind again, then the Last Checked line
DJ Lucas wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I understand your point, but I was thinking of the future. It's true that
any
package we update now should be against 6.5. The absence of a line that
says
Last Reviewed means that it was before 6.5.
In the future, if we get behind again, then the Last
Bruce Dubbs schrieb:
I understand your point, but I was thinking of the future. It's true that
any
package we update now should be against 6.5. The absence of a line that says
Last Reviewed means that it was before 6.5.
In the future, if we get behind again, then the Last Checked line
23 matches
Mail list logo
