On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
Or, to address both of those points, make it LFS-patches policy to simply
reject any patch that hasn't been submitted upstream! :)
Matt.
OK, so we can drop most of the lfs-specific patches for starters. And
what happens when we do send
On 8/31/2005 22:56, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
After that, I will send a patch to the XML sources of the book if there
are no objections.
Goodness I hope not! You work tirelessly on this important, but no doubt,
tedious task.
~Jason
--
--
Ken Moffat wrote:
OK, so we can drop most of the lfs-specific patches for starters.
I strongly disagree. As shown below, trunk currently uses 21 patches,
only 5 of which have an uncertain (or known unreported) upstream status.
Obviously, the gcc4 branch adds a few more, but by and large
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 8/6/05, Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a sample LFS-like system that supports UTF-8 is available on a live CD.
So, it may be a good idea to create an experimental branch of the LFS
book that incorporates the same changes. LFS built according to that
Hello,
a sample LFS-like system that supports UTF-8 is available on a live CD.
So, it may be a good idea to create an experimental branch of the LFS
book that incorporates the same changes. LFS built according to that
branch should work in both UTF-8 and traitional locales. So, patches
that
I wrote:
BUGS ON THE CD:
see
http://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/viewcvs.cgi/x86/branches/utf8/BUGS?rev=549root=livecdview=markup
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information
