On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote:
The only thing I can think of is this is how it was many, many
moons ago, and the devs simply haven't updated their defaults to
conform with modern standards.
That's actually pretty good. :)))
Steven
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these words on 10/30/05 22:34 CST:
> Why don't we just have a regular /usr/man directory?
Because it doesn't conform with the FHS.
> Why get rid of them
> at all? What's the rationale behind the individual package devs who use
> the different locations? I'm sure the
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Because the current way has symlinks /usr/man -> /usr/share/man, etc.
It would be nice to get rid of these depending on how picky you are.
Why don't we just have a regular /usr/man directory? Why get rid of them
at all? What's the rationale behind t
On 10/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > them. In order to remove them, we must add --mandir and --infodir to each
> > package (and thus teach people bad habit of typing long commands when
> > shorter
> > ones work), or use config.site.
>
> We've not needed to use those before
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Yes, in the current "normal" LFS, this config.site file can be really used
for --prefix=/usr only. But let's move forward. There's no /usr/info,
/usr/doc and /usr/man compatibility symlinks in FHS 2.3, and LFS still has
I thought that I had FH
Archaic wrote:
One thing that sounds interesting is to not use it in LFS, but use it in
BLFS. That way people learn both methods. If that is not feasible for
BLFS, then I don't think it should be in just the LFS book as removes
the need to do things manually. Repetition is good for learning while
Archaic wrote:
One thing that sounds interesting is to not use it in LFS, but use it in
BLFS. That way people learn both methods. If that is not feasible for
BLFS, then I don't think it should be in just the LFS book as removes
the need to do things manually. Repetition is good for learning while
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Archaic wrote:
the need to do things manually. Repetition is good for learning while
building LFS.
I second this.
Steven
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 10/30/05, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that sounds interesting is to not use it in LFS, but use it in
> BLFS. That way people learn both methods. If that is not feasible for
> BLFS, then I don't think it should be in just the LFS book as removes
> the need to do things manually
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 10:19:16AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Obviously, I'm not a dev, but I really think that all the books should
> use config.site. It certainly simplifies the building process
> immensely. I have a /etc/config.site and a /etc/config.site.gnome
> (you can imagine how tha
On 10/30/05, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > In any case, are you asking that Cross-LFS investigate the idea of using a
> > config.site for their build?
>
> Yes, for both Cross-LFS and regular LFS.
Obviously, I'm not a dev, but I really think that al
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
In any case, are you asking that Cross-LFS investigate the idea of using a
config.site for their build?
Yes, for both Cross-LFS and regular LFS.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Un
Alexander Patrakov wrote:
> But now, when I try to implement config.site, this hits some
> inconsistencies in the book (e.g. sometimes --build is passed to
> packages configured with --prefix=/tools, sometimes not). So my attempt
> to implement it tends to end up with something that is different fr
Hello,
it has been proposed to utilize the config.site file in order to
minimize the number of "ifdef cross" constructions in the LiveCD
makefiles. The cruft I am talking about usually has this form:
compile-stage2:
ifndef CROSS
./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64
else
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Okay, they are in place. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/OOo_2.0.0/
>
> This should be very close to what will be needed in BLFS. I'm not sure
> the firefox target will be supported, though connecting to a Thunderbird
> address book works very well (once you figure out
El Sábado, 29 de Octubre de 2005 17:38, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> Howdy.
>
> Manuel, you have it buildable via jhalfs, right?
Yes.
> Have you seen good results with that?
Running now a new full build with current jhalfs version to be sure that all
is fine. I'm using this command line:
# .
16 matches
Mail list logo
