Joe Ciccone wrote:
I put this page together with the users and groups from LFS and BLFS.
The only addition I made to this page is a users groups with a gid of
100. Anyone that wants to set something in stone, this would be a good
place to start.
Isn't it good since the subscribe-only policy came in.
I really like this.
I'm really sending this to see if gmane posting works, so please don't
moderate it through.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
The Cross-LFS book says to go and register with the LFS counter. If
Cross-lfs is your first LFS, then you can't choose an appropriate
version! The Cross-lfs and HLFS versions need to be put in the list.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Hopefully the name of the two different threads is not so similar that
it looks to all as one thread. :-)
I'm adding K3b to the book. Some preliminary testing has shown that
it will work when installed in a prefix other than $KDE_PREFIX. Note
that this is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
./configure --prefix=$(kde-config --prefix)
Thoughts?
Neat. I like it.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Well, that's that then.
Over to you Jim, mate.
R.
--
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP
http://www.langside.org.uk PGP fingerprint:
D682 49A5 7050 E781 229C A2F0 DE1F C040 DE78 53E8
---BeginMessage---
LLH hasn't seen a new release for a lot more than six months now and up until
today I hoped to get
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
Well, that's that then.
Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on.
My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting
the santizing script into a state suitable for review on LKML
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Nothing *depends* on vim, so
leave it at the end.
I depend on vim. Put it at the front.
Only just :-)
Actually, if we were to replace Vim with Emacs we could have the editor
available early and retain
I've written two wiki pages, Libgphoto2 and GPhoto2, as a start of set
of packages on the general theme of Digital Photography.
There doesn't seem to be a good place to link these into the index.
What is suggested?
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Nothing *depends* on vim, so
leave it at the end.
I depend on vim. Put it at the front.
Only just :-)
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
resolved.
Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss now if
we want to downgrade shadow back to 4.0.13, or wait for its next release
if there is a known release date.
If
I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
Which version would SVN build? And after alphabering it? I never
build PAM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard,
I'm at work at the moment so can't reply on list. Shadow's 'su' is
documented to support the '-c' parameter, at least in man/su/su.1.xml.
I'm pretty certain I've used 'su -c' before now on my LFS box, and we've
used shadow's 'su' for as long as I can
Richard A Downing wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard,
I'm at work at the moment so can't reply on list. Shadow's 'su' is
documented to support the '-c' parameter, at least in man/su/su.1.xml.
I'm pretty certain I've used 'su -c' before now on my LFS box, and we've
used shadow's 'su
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
The shadow version of su
William Harrington wrote:
Howdy folks,
Well the dreaded day has arrived and I shall be deployed overseas. I
will be active
march 2nd and should last around 416 days. Maybe who knows...
Later everyone! Don't fight while I'm gone. LFS don't kill people!
People kill people!
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
ACTION==add, SUBSYSTEM==?* MODALIAS==?*, RUN+=/sbin/modprobe
${modalias}
Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules
didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must
have a typo somewhere else.
I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs udev patches, and they work fine, so
that's what I'm going with for now.
I'm not familiar with these patches, and I can't seem to find them in
the (x86 at least) cross-lfs book. Where are they?
Seeing
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
However since mine is a a non-branch SVN converted
to Udev (no hotplug) I may have missed something.
One immediate thought. Did you update the rules file to follow what's
in the udev branch? i.e. remove the callouts to run_udevd
DJ Lucas wrote:
The directories shm and pts are not created automagically in /dev
anymore. I just realized, however, that I have no idea how they had come
to exist before. Using 2.6.15.4 and udev-084. In the udev
instructions, add 'mkdir /lib/udev/devices/{shm,pts}' to the first
instruction
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage? Does
something we build later on actually require devices in there that we
haven't yet got available to us?
Hi Matt,
Glad to hear some news on the
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
stuff.
I don't normally like quoting scripture here but these are serious times:
Matthew 18:21
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 2/13/06, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
Nah, it's fat bastards that cause flame wars.
I once sent the Head of HR in my old firm a very aggressive
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I hadn't been following this branch, but decided that this is the next
important leap forward for Linux-kind - getting rid of hotpig, I mean,
so I am now in class and paying attention.
OK then, your homework assignment is to proof-read
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:31:03 +
Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(or am I missing a sarcasm-detection plugin)
That, along with my attention deficit disorder (which is why I can't
stand long sentences).
:-)
I hadn't been following this branch, but decided that this is the next
The excellent page 7.4 on Device and Module Handling on an LFS System
has a minor wording difficulty for me. In 7.4.4 the
sentence A kernel driver may not export its data to sysfs. means that
a kernel driver is not allowed, by some unspecified rules, to export its
data to sysfs. What I think
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:36:34 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Ennis wrote these words on 01/24/06 00:23 CST:
This may well be the case, but many people will
view the site using this particular non-standard,
whether or not they are a target audience.
If it looks bad
Sorry, I tried to stop this getting out with the attachment. Not
quick enough!
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:36 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
immediately though, of course. I think another two weeks of
testing by *all* members of the community, be they developers or
our beloved users, is still necessary to ensure we can all make
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:29:27 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I have a login ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for BLFS which I know
the password (and checked it with Bogzilla), but trac doesn't let
me log in. Or perhaps you're just picking on me! (:-)
R
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:38:32 -0800
Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we all have come to realization that LLH headers are not
coming out. So I've been checking into how to make these headers. So
I'm asking everyone's opinion on this before I pursue this task.
Well done Jim, someone
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:39:52 +1100
Greg Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we want use 2.4 headers with patches, like the distro's? (NO!,
may loose some 2.6 ABI functionality)
Amazingly, this is what the distro with the most Linux professionals
working for it does (ie: RH/Fedora). Ask
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:34:39 +
Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
The problem is that I no longer want UTF-8 in trunk.
Well, I do. I consider it a bug that we can't cater for folk wanting
to use UTF-8 locales without breaking groff, man, grep, etc.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0800
Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/20/06, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, this broke jhalfs, because it assumes that the book
has to be followed in the linear way. Further patches will not be
provided until a
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:49:56 -0800
Jim Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reply to both lists
Jim,
Cross-lfs is not on gmane. Can you get it on there please, then I'll
monitor it. I don't do mailing lists anymore.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:42 +0500
Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:50:04 -0500
Waywardness D. Norma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(spam)
Way to go, Alexander! I actually get Cyrillic in Sylpheed-claws on
this UTF-8
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:50:23 +0500
Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:42 +0500
Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's in fact very strange that you couldn't render foreign spam in
your old LFS. This might
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:05:39 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I edited the perl file in commands and removed the make test! Then
rerun. Cheating, I know.
And I hope by re-run you meant that you did something like this:
'cd /mnt/lfs/jhalfs
rm
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:27:06 + (GMT)
Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, David Mascall wrote:
I wonder why this only occurs under jhalfs ? I cant find any
reports of this error from people building current SVN non-jhalfs.
snip
More generally, the number of
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:50:04 -0500
Waywardness D. Norma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
П о к у п а е м б/у а в т о м о б и л и
отечественного, японского , американского , европейского и др.
производителей , джипы , минивены , легковые и автобусы, в любом
техническом
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:27:26 +
David Mascall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of SVN at
ext/DB_File/t/db-recno, Test 87.
Probably something to do with db?
Or is it me?
You are not alone - I'm getting the same error
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:40:26 +
Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Why is it that the package URL is not listed, but only the location
where it *should* be?
snip
So, why not just list the package URL?
Short answer...it's a historical oversight, I
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:10:45 +
David Mascall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:27:26 +
David Mascall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of SVN at
ext/DB_File/t/db-recno
Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of SVN at
ext/DB_File/t/db-recno, Test 87.
Probably something to do with db?
Or is it me?
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BDB dependencies have already been removed from SVN BLFS.
pity.
Well
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:40:35 +
Richard A Downing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I would really quite like to see
dependencies
I was reading one of the mailings about stable and unstable versions...
You know, in almost five years of doing this LFS stuff, I have never
once actually NEEDED a later version of an LFS package. OK, when it
arrived, the improvements were sometimes good, but I was never
actually waiting for it.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:22:53 -0800
Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To both guys,
Thanks for all the hard work on the hardware issues. I promise it is
appreciated by others on the list whether they're vocal about it or
not. I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm eager to see how
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:09:47 +0500
Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
Can someone point me to the discussion thread that decided this
change of man package? I want to review the reasons to make my own
decision on it.
There was no discussion thread
I noticed that this switch is in the LFS book for BerkyDB, I haven't
built that for some time (when something says it needs a DB that I'm
testing).
Does Man-DB need this? I'm amazed if it does - the rationale for
using it is that it's maintained and modern and handles all sorts of
UTF-8 stuff.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:37:49 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/07/06 13:26 CST:
I noticed that this switch is in the LFS book for BerkyDB, I haven't
built that for some time (when something says it needs a DB that I'm
testing
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:51:01 -0500
Chris Staub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just looking for ways to reduce the temp-system in /tools as much
as possible. I've built LFS systems before without having ncurses
there and it works fine. I believe the only issue is texinfo - many
programs in
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:04:13 +
Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks very much for all your hard work on this Alexander.
Da. +1.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:06:53 +0100
Feldmeier Bernd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you call this that way ok.
But marking some packs as optional
that is really educational in my mind.
The user can decide wether to include that
not essential stuff like devel-packs ...
Bernd,
We've all
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:13:37 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
It's not that no one has anything to say, it is probably the fact
that the author of that text is the only one qualified to say
anything.
Alright, well thanks for that, Randy. That's
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:37:32 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to announce Andy Benton as a new BLFS Editor. Andy has
been a long time participant in the BLFS project and brings a lot of
skill and enthusiasm to the project.
Please help me in welcoming Andy to the team.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:33:07 +0200
Ag Hatzim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate when the people leave.
Please Bruce ignore him.
Ag,
It's old news. I didn't leave, just stopped wanting to be an
editor. I'm still here 'putting my oar in' on the inappropriate
occasion.
Bruce already did the
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:50 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
Bing. You hit the nail on the head there. As Richard said, Fedora Core 4
isn't a suitable distro to build the stable version of the book. It
should work OK for the development version but
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:44 -0700
Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The target
audience of this book has fallen drastically, and my one shot in the
dark request for trunk would be to rip out a lot of the text that is
currently in it and take it back down to circa the 3.0 days when it had
all
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:54:31 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gueven Bay wrote:
Hi dear LFS devs,
I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev.
Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write)
the book but now I want to write some
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:35:50 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, if you start thinking about packages to pull from LFS,
then you need to start looking at Perl as well. Where do you stop?
True. However Perl used to be needed for GCC tests to run (IIRC). We
DO need to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:51:02 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:23 CST:
It is a mystery why Unix admins who wouldn't even trust their employer
with more than a normal user account carelessly execute complex and
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:58:24 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is kind of a brave request, and I'm fully prepared to be shot down.
In fact, I think I'd be surprised if the group went for it. ;) However
after thinking about this for some time, I'm going to venture a request
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:28:27 +
Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Murphy's law being as it is, the moment we add such a message to the
book, an updated version of LLH will be released and make it immediately
out of date!
Anyone tried asking the llh devs about their plans?
--
Bruce (et al),
I no longer wish to be an editor of the BLFS book.
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:34:45 -0700
Gerard Beekmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys,
There seems to be some issues relating UIDs and GIDs especially between
BLFS and CLFS.
I'm not going to point the finger whose fault this is and I don't care
about personal issues as I have noticed things
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:09:45 -0700
Gerard Beekmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
Gerard suddenly discovered that, in his long absence, the LFS
projects have got away from him and went looking for an 'issue' so as
to re-establish his authorty.
Richard, I am
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:26:02 -0700
Gerard Beekmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read all the lists (I think, I didn't check for new ones recently).
I have not seen this on lfs-dev or blfs-dev. Which lists?
cross-lfs
Damn it, there would be one! I didn't notice that cross-lfs had it's own
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:43:13 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
How about someone writing a 'chroot-script', and including it somewhere in
the book.
Of course, you'd need two of them.
Take a look at the source for jhalfs. They do a very nice job
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:30:44 -0600
William Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
There has been a high amount of traffic related to the chroot
environment of chapter 6.
It would be great if we could tie people down, force their eyelids
open, and make them read! However, that
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 01:28:11 -0700
Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:58:51AM -0100, Duncan Webb wrote:
Now that we're no longer in summer time in the Makefile for
LFS-Bootscripts-3.2.1 there are no rules to install setclock during a
reboot or shutdown. So the
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:28:40 -0500 (GMT+5)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't anyone read the documentation anymore? :) I can understand
needing to teach them about configure...
One big problem for new Linux friends, and indeed for new users of most large
programs, it the wealth of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
If anything is
written, I'd be glad to peruse it and give an opinion as someone who
still has only the loosest grasp of how the hardware is set up.
Well, I've written some notes up on this, though they're not entirely
accurate.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I just noticed that gtk+-2.8.6 doesn't say it needs glib-2.8.3 or am I
missing something here?
blfs-dev, perhaps? :)
Damn, I used one of those infernal cross-posted mailsing to pick the To:!
Sorry.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 10/16/05 04:39 CST:
I just noticed that gtk+-2.8.6 doesn't say it needs glib-2.8.3 or am I
missing something here? I'm sure it used to be a required dep.
GTK+ requires Pango, which requires GLib. It still is a required
Andrew Benton wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I think the solution is to move the initial time-sync operation out of
the bootscript and into the configuration section of NTP (obviously
with enough explanation as to why we need to do this and why it should
be a one-time operation, but faulty
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Incidentally, I'd love for someone to draw a nice looking graphic to
show how kernel events, udev, hotplug, modules, etc. are all related and
how they function together. If a similar graphic could be drawn without
the hotplug component in there, a direct comparison
Matthew Burgess wrote:
==
[coreutils-5.2.1 + current LFS patch]:
bash-3.00# uname -i
i386
bash-3.00# uname -p
athlon-4
bash-3.00# uname -a
Linux kyoto 2.6.10-5-386 #1 Thu Sep 8 06:18:41 UTC 2005 i686 athlon-4
i386 GNU/Linux
==
This is
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi guys,
Archaic and I have put our heads together to try and come up with a more
reasonable set of Udev rules. These are based on the following criteria:
1) If a device needs packages outside those installed by LFS then don't
include a rule for it. (e.g. audio
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 09/13/05 15:00 CST:
I just got though building it on the GCC-4 system. It appears to work
well. (gtk+-2.8.3/glib-2.8.1/pango-1.10.0/atk-1.10.1/cairo-1.0.0)
Probably should have moved to ATK-1.10.3 as this is what the book
BZ #1564
Randy states the following:
quote
Closing this bug as invalid. PCRE is on the recommended dependency list.
If a builder chooses not to follow our recommendations, then whatever
happens is on the builder.
Recommended = Do it
The only reason it is in recommeneded instead of reqiured is
Richard A Downing wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
The LFS book(s) link to Richard's Essential Pre-Reading Hint in the
Prerequisites section, as you may already be aware. The hint, in turn,
mentions that there is a better maintained version at
http://www.109bean.org.uk/lfsdocs/LFS-prereading.html
Randy McMurchy wrote:
snip
Please folks, comment on this as I would like to implement immediately.
We'd really need a compelling reason why we don't change the existing
instructions to use Archaic's method.
I don't have time this week or next (family visiting) to investigate,
but I trust you
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 8/17/05, Richard A Downing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest LFS changes to this simplified form, although, as a
non-editor, I don't really have a vote! :-)
Additionally, if folks do find these fields useful, I propose moving
them below the changelog entries
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
I prefer a straight forward chronological list of changes without all
the sections: Upgraded, Added and Removed.
Proposals generally are better received when they contain rationale (and
no, I prefer doesn't count!) :)
It should do. I'm
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Archaic wrote:
That just seems silly. Warn was much nicer and still allowed things to
proceed.
Can we not still warn, but just leave the exit status as '0'. The spec
(from the quote given) doesn't appear to forbid output, it just mandates
what the exit status
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
The problem is that BLFS assumes that you have built *all* package in
LFS. So if you skip a package, you are a pariah when you post to
BLFS-support :-)
That is one reason I don't prefer packages being added to LFS, it
takes away the options.
I don't follow this.
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 07:04:32AM +0100, Richard A Downing wrote:
I don't follow this. Isn't blfs-support the place for all beyond LFS
support questions. It's not limited to BLFS packages, so why should
there be a 'complete' lfs assumption.
Because the book assumes
Archaic wrote:
But back to the original pariah
comment, when dealing with a dependency, it can cause a less than
friendly response when, after several attempts at finding a solution, it
is finally realized (or mentioned) that a necessary portion of LFS was
excluded which would have solved the
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi,
During the recent thread on whether or not Cracklib should be introduced
to LFS, the lack of an official policy on what criteria a package has to
meet in order to be included in the book was highlighted. So, to
correct that, I'm going to get the ball rolling
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
However, LFS history has shown that we cannot count on such a document
to become formalized.
I'm not sure if a formal set of rules is in fact possible. If we
consider the packages that are in the book at the moment, they can be
broken down
Randy McMurchy wrote:
stirling wrote these words on 08/02/05 23:48 CST:
enigmail and ipc need version bumps in the mozilla instructions to be
consistent with the versions used for thunderbird:
enigmail-0.92.0
ipc-1.1.3
Indeed. Mozdev shows these versions to be used with Mozilla-1.7.x
Repost 'cos I didn't see it was the wrong list either...
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
looking for ideas on how to go about making whatever changes might
be necessary to the package instructions available to the community.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/
That link is also mentioned on
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/read.html, now that we mention the
various branches of LFS.
Cheers,
Matt.
I just can't keep up with you lot... :-)
R
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
Well, the time has finally come to move house. I've been threatening to
do it since February, but the realors, lawyers and bankers have finally
got their act together and the men with the big truck will be here on
Monday (my computers will go in my car, though).
I have not been able to arrange a
98 matches
Mail list logo
