I'm confused, or your using terminology I'm not understanding - by
definition, a default gateway is where I send packets that I don't
know
how
to route - and therefore there can only be one default gateway.
Perhaps
you meant multiple routes between networks, which can already be
On Sat, 7 May 2005, 08:24, Andreas Fehr (as AF) wrote:
AF: JH: Although it's not 100% complete, and may contain a few bugs,
AF: JH: there's a multi-arch LFS book under development with a ppc
AF: JH: section. It might be a good reference for you:
AF: JH:
AF: JH:
Andreas Fehr wrote:
[snip a list of good catches]
Thanks Andreas for those notes. To be honest, I don't know if anyone had
actually built an LFS system by following that book yet. Thanks for
testing it out for us! ;) I had always built my ppc machine by just
following the x86 book and adjusting
On Sun, 8 May 2005, 10:15, Jeremy Huntwork (as JH) wrote:
JH: Thanks Andreas for those notes. To be honest, I don't know if
JH: anyone had actually built an LFS system by following that book
JH: yet. Thanks for testing it out for us! ;) I had always built my
JH: ppc machine by just
Ryan Oliver wrote:
Best stay /lib /lib64, trust me...
I'm still working on hackery for gcc to provide the other if so desired
but it is not that high on my agenda as of yet...
Plus, if you go the other way, expect pain with pre-compiled stuff such
as Nvidia drivers, and you have to hack X which
Could someone throw me a cluebat here? I've found a patch that is needed
for the sparc architecture and kbd-1.12 (Build fails with:
kbdrate.c:167: error: structure has no member named `period')
The patch I've found is placed under two licenses it seems. How do we
usually handle something like
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Could someone throw me a cluebat here? I've found a patch that is needed
for the sparc architecture and kbd-1.12 (Build fails with:
kbdrate.c:167: error: structure has no member named `period')
The patch I've found is placed under two licenses it
On May 8, 2005 09:17 am, Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:16:24AM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
FSF binutils-2.16 looks like its alright, at least for x86. I assume we
can switch to this? The patches are no problem, the uclibc one is already
made, the pt_pax one only has 1 rejected
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 04:52:42PM +0200, Andreas Fehr wrote:
LFS works now on my mac mini (including network),
That's good to hear since I have one en route via FedEx right now. :)
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 06:05:59PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
/me dons his FedEx suit, infiltrates the system and intercepts the package.
Take Nathan's, instead. His is more brightly polished. :P
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux
10 matches
Mail list logo
