On 7/8/05, Bernard Leak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been cleaning up the makefiles for some of the
bits of BLFS, mostly with a view to enabling building away from
the source tree. In a sense this is repairing what isn't broken,
but others also may want to do it. Is there
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 01:35:57PM -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
I personally don't see the benefits of compiling in a separate build
dir (since make clean/distclean usually do the job) but you are
welcome to submit patches to the patches project.
After having been a maintainer of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernard Leak wrote:
Dear List,
I've been cleaning up the makefiles for some of the
bits of BLFS, mostly with a view to enabling building away from
the source tree. In a sense this is repairing what isn't broken,
but others also
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
A benefit I see on these patches is that building outside source tree
allow us to e.g. keep the source code on a repository without fear of
having a messed up working copy.
Since we are not developers, fixing a messed up working copy is as
simple as rm -r dir; tar -xf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
A benefit I see on these patches is that building outside source tree
allow us to e.g. keep the source code on a repository without fear of
having a messed up working copy.
Since we are not
Archaic wrote these words on 07/10/05 17:51 CST:
After having been a maintainer of the patches repor for quite some time
now, I am in vehement agreement with Jim that patches that do not appear
in any book or in any hint should *not* be hosted here.
Why? I did not see anything posted by Jim
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:50:09AM +0100, Bernard Leak wrote:
Dear List,
Wrong list. You need to send BLFS stuff to either blfs-support or
blfs-dev depending on what type of question you have.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From
