Is there any realistic expectation that the facility to write to the
lists via the NNTP service will be fixed? There is also a suggestion
that it might be withdrawn.
I ask, since I'm updating the text in the BLFS book, and I want to
accurately reflect the true situation. My current draft reads:
Thank you all for your good wishes. I shall endeavour to limit the
damage I cause by, for instance, my tipografikal inexaktytudes.
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Richard A Downing wrote:
Is there any realistic expectation that the facility to write to the
lists via the NNTP service will be fixed? There is also a suggestion
that it might be withdrawn.
I came up with a plan that may well have fixed NNTP, but have been too
busy to get around to it. As
Matthew Burgess wrote:
FWIW, if upstream believe it shouldn't be on by default, then we should
follow their recommendation and drop the optional 'grpconv' command from
the book. I have no idea how common shadowed groups are out in the wild
though.
AFAIK, the only time that gshadow is used
Richard A Downing wrote:
Is there any realistic expectation that the facility to write to the
lists via the NNTP service will be fixed? There is also a suggestion
that it might be withdrawn.
I ask, since I'm updating the text in the BLFS book, and I want to
accurately reflect the true
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST:
So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue and
you don't. I think
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote:
In my
book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had
to be a better solution.
Hi Jim,
Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll
be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of lib64|lib), or indeed pure64
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST:
So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote:
In my
book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had
to be a better solution.
Hi Jim,
Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll
be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
There is no good place to warn in BLFS (there is no section Packages
Not to Install, maybe there should be!). Hence, IMO the best option
is the package with which it clashes.
Right, my thought on this was that a note could be put on each of the
packages that are known
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 13:22 CST:
I was pointing out the facts, as I see them and as they are on the
list. This is my only post on this whole issue, everything else has come
through Gerard after communicating with me. It's time for me to defend
myself, because this
On 7/29/05, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can think of suitable wording
for the Glibc page in LFS, I don't mind adding it. I know that's more
my job than yours, but I'm not fully up to speed on the exact issues
involved.
Netiher am I :-) All I know is glibc and libiconv
Matthew Burgess wrote:
for the Glibc page in LFS, I don't mind adding it. I know that's more
my job than yours, but I'm not fully up to speed on the exact issues
involved.
Matt, it's called delegating *g* It's no longer your job when you deem
it to be somebody elses.
--
Gerard Beekmans
Richard A Downing wrote:
Thank you all for your good wishes. I shall endeavour to limit the
damage I cause by, for instance, my tipografikal inexaktytudes.
That would just make things more...interesting
--
Gerard Beekmans
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
I get the folowing error doing make in
autoconf-2.59 in lfs-gcc4-20050728
Can't locate Data/Dumper.pm in @INC.( @INC
contains: ---blah blah ...
/test/../lib/Autom4te/C4che.pm line 35
BEGIN failed --compilation aborted at
/sources/autoconf-2.59//test/../lib/Autom4te/C4che.pm line 35.
I
I get the folowing error doing make in autoconf-2.59 in
lfs-gcc4-20050728
Where can a fellow take a look at the gcc4 book? :) I'd be interested in
providing some feedback on this! :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Greg Schafer wrote:
No, that is the whole problem. The upstream developer has not made it
Gotcha, I misunderstood that bit.
Well that does change things a bit. If the developers don't have it
figured out yet, let's then maintain the status quo for now?
--
Gerard Beekmans
/* If Linux
Jim Gifford wrote:
So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
work and didn't give you credit,
Jim, never once have I used the word stolen. The changes you made to the
LFS Cross build made it
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
work and didn't give you credit,
Jim, never once have I used the word stolen. The changes you made
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:29 CST:
[snip bunch of garbage]
How do you expect me to work with you on something when you attacked me
like you did, what you did was totally uncalled for and unacceptable by
moral standards. You should of communicated to me privately, instead of
20 matches
Mail list logo
