On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:53:48PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt, one thing I think everyone here has forgot, what about cross-lfs.
How will the change affect us.
If you have concerns, ideas, or comments, please post them.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your
Archaic wrote these words on 09/14/05 00:41 CST:
I do not think that if it is the
main argument that it should have enough power to overrule the benefit.
But what is the benefit? I've asked this question now three times in
this thread and have yet to receive an answer.
What does LFS gain by
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:09:31AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
First of all Archaic, I would like to point out that your message
was so perfectly stated that it really made me think about the big
picture here. Well done, sir.
Thank you.
The crux of the issue seems to be Gerard's desire to
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:23:25AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
What does LFS gain by eliminating these groups and Udev rules?
I do not see it as what does {B,}LFS gain, but what do the readers gain?
An elaboration is in the post I just sent 60 seconds ago. :)
--
Archaic
Want control,
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
Archaic wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 06:35:52PM -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
### RATIONALE FOR REMOVAL ### ptmx - isn't directly accessed by a
user. /etc/fstab dictates pty perms
That's incorrect; this change would break PTYs completely.
And apparently your
On 9/14/05, Richard A Downing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to go against everything my BLFS editorial colleagues have said,
but I rather like this proposal.
I think it adds to the educational nature of both books.
If a device exists and has no rule in the lfs set, then a node is
created
Archaic wrote:
And apparently your statement is also incorrect because ssh can
properly create ptys all day long with the proper permissions. So
apparently a closer look into both scenarios is warranted.
I didn't try ssh. But I did try xterm and expect (both of which use
PTYs), and both
-snip lengthly messages-
Hi all,
I have been following this thread and I have a suggestion that I believe
to be a good compromise.
When installing the Udev package in LFS, add a file called 99default to
the /etc/udev/rules.d directory which basically just puts all the
devices in their
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 devices)
2) If hardware is
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 13:50 CST:
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:
Looking over the rules very briefly, I noticed that the comm devices
are not going to be
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Looking over the rules very briefly, I noticed that the comm devices
are not going to be defined. Did I interpret that correctly?
If so, I think it is a mistake. One couldn't even use his serial mouse.
Can you use your mouse on a vanilla LFS box? I thought it required
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 13:50 CST:
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:
Looking over the new rules proposal further, I would like to go
on record as being
El Martes, 13 de Septiembre de 2005 20:50, Matthew Burgess escribió:
With that in mind, we'd appreciate feedback on the attached config file
especially if you've tested it in the field and found that we broke
something! Errors and omissions expected :)
The network devices removal includes
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I suppose I still look at it
that whatever hardware may be installed on the machine should have
a device node (if appropriate) created for it at boot time, regardless
if there is software that can actually use it.
Like I said in the original RFC, udev *will* still create
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 14:15 CST:
Like I said in the original RFC, udev *will* still create nodes for
*all* device it finds, regardless of the existence or otherwise of a
rule in its configuration files. It just means that where a rule
doesn't exist for the device,
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Like I said in the original RFC, udev *will* still create nodes for
*all* device it finds, regardless of the existence or otherwise of a
rule in its configuration files. It just means that where a rule
doesn't exist for the device, it will be given the following
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
Like I said in the original RFC, udev *will* still create nodes for *all*
device it finds, regardless of the existence or otherwise of a rule in its
configuration files. It just means that where a rule doesn't exist for the
device, it will be
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/13/05 14:22 CST:
If that's the case, then I somewhat retract. However, I still feel that
if you're going to do something, do it right the first time.
Yes. I should have stated in my earlier message that I believe a
*properly created* device node for any
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 14:05 CST:
Looking over the rules very briefly, I noticed that the comm devices
are not going to be defined. Did I interpret that correctly?
If so, I think it is a mistake. One couldn't even use his serial mouse.
Can you
On 9/13/05, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Create the /dev/cdrom symlink.
BUS=ide, KERNEL=*[!0-9], PROGRAM=/bin/cat /proc/ide/%k/media,
RESULT=cdrom, NAME=%k, SYMLINK=cdrom
I'm sorry if this has been suggested before and there's a major fault
in it, but the above line only works
Matthew Burgess wrote:
With that in mind, we'd appreciate feedback on the attached config file
especially if you've tested it in the field and found that we broke
something! Errors and omissions expected :)
As I understand it A==B is a test to see whether A is the same as B but A=B
means
Randy McMurchy wrote:
But for the BLFS devs to painstakingly
go through the book and try and figure out which ones of the almost
400 packages are going to need updates to add an entry to a rules
file, and instructions to restart udev is simply such a royal pain
in the ass.
I wasn't/we weren't
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/13/05 15:05 CST:
Hmm, I'd equate that with telling folks to grab the blfs-bootscripts
package and do a 'make install' (i.e. install every single bootscript,
whether it's required or not).
No Matt, that is a bad analogy. Bootscripts run at boot time
Randy McMurchy wrote:
A Udev rules file sets up parameters to create device nodes if,
*and only if*, the hardware exists. The device nodes need to be
created if the hardware exists. A properly set up Udev rules file
ensures the device nodes are properly created.
Yes, but who's to say that the
Randy McMurchy wrote:
LFS installs the daemon, LFS starts the daemon and provides a
mechanism so that it is started and each boot. Folks that want to
learn about Udev should have already discovered that knowledge when
they installed it in LFS.
And everything is there for them to do that (now
In the etc directory of the udev tarball there are rules that are used
by the distro's. Maybe we could use one of those instead???
([EMAIL PROTECTED])-(02:12 PM Tue Sep 13)-(/usr/src/udev-068/etc/udev)
# ls
debian frugalware gentoo redhat slackware suse udev.conf.in
udev-devfs.rules
On 9/14/05, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:
snip
Good work guys - tthanks for creating the initial ruleset.
#
Matthew Burgess wrote:
### RATIONALE FOR REMOVAL ### ptmx - isn't directly accessed by a
user. /etc/fstab dictates pty perms
That's incorrect; this change would break PTYs completely.
In order to create a PTY, the master process opens /dev/ptmx. That's
the pseudo-terminal master file for
On 9/14/05, steve crosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Note also that editing the default ruleset supplied by LFS is not
necessary - multiple rules files are perfectly acceptable, as long as
the rules of precedence are considered.
Replying to myself ;)
Does it make sense to have *two* rule
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I strongly urge the criterion number one to read:
1) If a device needs packages outside those installed by LFS or BLFS
then don't include a rule for it.
BLFS assumes the user has a base LFS system. Don't make a lot of work
for us for some exotic minimalism principle.
Jeremy Huntwork([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:30:40PM -0400:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I strongly urge the criterion number one to read:
1) If a device needs packages outside those installed by LFS or BLFS
then don't include a rule for it.
BLFS assumes the user has a base LFS
Ag Hatzim wrote:
I always was under the impression,that there is some kind of interaction
between LFS/BLFS.
We do have interaction. That was exactly the reason Matt made the post.
He wanted to get the reaction of the LFS community. We do most things
publicly via the mailing lists.
The
Bruce Dubbs([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:01:00AM -0500:
Ag Hatzim wrote:
I always was under the impression,that there is some kind of interaction
between LFS/BLFS.
We do have interaction. That was exactly the reason Matt made the post.
He wanted to get the reaction of
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:09:48PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I can understand the desire to remove rules for non-LFS targeted
architectures, but have to disagree with the proposal to remove the
entries for audio devices and other BLFS supported devices.
Stepping in even later than you... :)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:08:55PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
The network devices removal includes eth0 and like?
No. There was only one device listed. linux doesn't use a /dev device
for eth.
KERNEL=tun, NAME=net/%k
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:43:33PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I'm sorry if this has been suggested before and there's a major fault
in it, but the above line only works if you have one cdrom installed.
If you have multiple drives, only the last one gets the symlink. A
very simple fix is
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 06:35:52PM -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
### RATIONALE FOR REMOVAL ### ptmx - isn't directly accessed by a
user. /etc/fstab dictates pty perms
That's incorrect; this change would break PTYs completely.
And apparently your statement is also
38 matches
Mail list logo
