I would like to download the LFS-6.4 version of the book but it is
missing from the download section
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/
Is it still available?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe:
On 1 April 2010 00:17, Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
I would like to download the LFS-6.4 version of the book but it is
missing from the download section
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/
Is it still available?
You can read it at:
Baho Utot wrote:
I would like to download the LFS-6.4 version of the book but it is
missing from the download section
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/
Is it still available?
Just a minor permissions problem. Both 6.3 and 6.4 are accessible now.
-- Bruce
--
On March 31, 2010 05:31:07 pm Ken Moffat wrote:
Quite why anyone would want to read it now, other than to compare
what has changed, is beyond me.
I agree with Ken. I see you fighting with KDE-3, but it's mainly because
you're building a version that's not maintained - not officially anyways...
Ken Moffat wrote:
On 1 April 2010 00:17, Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
I would like to download the LFS-6.4 version of the book but it is
missing from the download section
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/
Is it still available?
You can read it at:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
I would like to download the LFS-6.4 version of the book but it is
missing from the download section
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/
Is it still available?
Just a minor permissions problem. Both 6.3 and 6.4 are accessible
Trent Shea wrote:
On March 31, 2010 05:31:07 pm Ken Moffat wrote:
Quite why anyone would want to read it now, other than to compare
what has changed, is beyond me.
I agree with Ken. I see you fighting with KDE-3, but it's mainly because
you're building a version that's not
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 10:59 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
A point release should go through full QA, which is why it would
be a big deal, require full directory structure creation, regresion
testing, etc. Someone would have to go through the full build
following the book exactly.
Seems to me
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 12:12 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ignoring those issues or now, the process of a release includes building the
book in multiple formats, placing all support files in their proper location,
ensuring the mirror master has all the correct files, updating the web site,
and
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:48 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
If we were *really* following standard practice, we'd be applying the
errata changes against the 6.4 book, and putting a 6.4.1 book on the
website to replace it.
Can't dispute. You'd do a point release.
Right,
Simon Geard wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:48 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
If we were *really* following standard practice, we'd be applying the
errata changes against the 6.4 book, and putting a 6.4.1 book on the
website to replace it.
Can't dispute. You'd do a point
Full QA? For a change in wording? Thats like saying that the book
has an extra the on page X and to remove the extra the we need to
re-read the whole book just to make sure that the extra the doesnt
break any code.
Please dont tell me that your serious.
As far as new download locations...fine,
Mike McCarty wrote:
A point release should go through full QA, which is why it would
be a big deal, require full directory structure creation, regression
testing, etc. Someone would have to go through the full build
following the book exactly.
I've been following this thread, but would
A point release should go through full QA, which is why it would
be a big deal, require full directory structure creation, regresion
testing, etc. Someone would have to go through the full build
following the book exactly.
Mike
This might be above my head, but why does a point release
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:08 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
This sort of thing is standard practice with all major projects,
and has nothing to do with the medium in which the components
get realized. It has everything to do with quality assurance
and version control.
Actually, I disagree - most
Simon Geard wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:08 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
This sort of thing is standard practice with all major projects,
and has nothing to do with the medium in which the components
get realized. It has everything to do with quality assurance
and version control.
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't need to change the book number just make the changes in
the book. On the page where the people will download the book just
warn them to check there for the newest version. This is what other
major open source developers do. Why do you want to
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Why do so many computer geeks want to make things complicated?
I am not a member of the LFS support, development, or maintenance
teams and efforts, and do not speak for any of them. I speak
only for myself. I will allow that I am what you probably
refer to
On Monday 06 April 2009 08:57:28 Mike McCarty wrote:
You are displaying complete ignorance of what the terms
Quality Control and Version Control mean. I suggest that
you study a little bit.
Why do you want to be insulting? That is rude and abrasive.
When I used the word geek I was not being
For 30 years I have been involved in different parts of
manufacturing, assemblyline production, machine design and
eventually I became a training instructor of CAD software in an
engineering department or as an independent contractor/consultant.
Production drawings have revisions all the time
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 06 April 2009 08:57:28 Mike McCarty wrote:
You are displaying complete ignorance of what the terms
Quality Control and Version Control mean. I suggest that
you study a little bit.
Why do you want to be insulting? That is rude and abrasive.
When
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
For 30 years I have been involved in different parts of
Could we please take this off the list? I'm not going to
respond further here.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 14:32 -0700, Jason Erickson wrote:
For the book, it could be 6.4.X where X is the latest version of the
6.4 book. Only changes made would be spelling, grammar, and FTP
locations.
Makes sense to me... any time you have something that would require an
errata page, just
Simon Geard wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 14:32 -0700, Jason Erickson wrote:
For the book, it could be 6.4.X where X is the latest version of the
6.4 book. Only changes made would be spelling, grammar, and FTP
locations.
Makes sense to me... any time you have something that would require an
On Sunday 05 April 2009 10:44:54 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 14:32 -0700, Jason Erickson wrote:
For the book, it could be 6.4.X where X is the latest version
of the 6.4 book. Only changes made would be spelling,
grammar, and FTP locations.
Makes sense
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't need to change the book number just make the changes in
the book. On the page where the people will download the book just
warn them to check there for the newest version. This is what other
major open source developers do. Why do you want to
On Sunday 05 April 2009 12:02:21 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't need to change the book number just make the changes
in the book. On the page where the people will download the
book just warn them to check there for the newest version. This
is what other
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:02 AM, genericmailli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 03 April 2009 23:13:19 Chris Staub wrote:
Jason Erickson wrote:
I've been using this for the past week learning about linux and
the installs and it has been a great tool. I want to first
thank you for offering
On Saturday 04 April 2009 14:28:53 Tomas Klacko wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:02 AM, genericmailli...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday 03 April 2009 23:13:19 Chris Staub wrote:
Jason Erickson wrote:
I've been using this for the past week learning about linux
and the installs and it has
There are always sub-revisions of source code. Minor things get fixed
and promoted as the newest. Like the kernel for instance. There is
2.6.x.y Major version is 2.6 and then there is a minor release of x.
Bug fixes for x get a number put into y.
For the book, it could be 6.4.X where X is the
I've been using this for the past week learning about linux and the
installs and it has been a great tool. I want to first thank you for
offering this book and helping others learn how to build linux from
scratch to make our own custom installs.
I did notice a few things going through it that I
On Friday 03 April 2009 14:03:28 Jason Erickson wrote:
For section 5.21 Gawk-3.1.6 There seems to be a formatting
issuehere is what the book says:
Compilation is now complete. As discussed earlier, running the
test suite is not mandatory for the temporary tools
here in this chapter. To
Jason Erickson wrote:
I've been using this for the past week learning about linux and the
installs and it has been a great tool. I want to first thank you for
offering this book and helping others learn how to build linux from
scratch to make our own custom installs.
I did notice a few
Yep...didnt see that page.
Thanks
Jason
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Chris Staub ch...@beaker67.com wrote:
Jason Erickson wrote:
I've been using this for the past week learning about linux and the
installs and it has been a great tool. I want to first thank you for
offering this book and
On Friday 03 April 2009 23:13:19 Chris Staub wrote:
Jason Erickson wrote:
I've been using this for the past week learning about linux and
the installs and it has been a great tool. I want to first
thank you for offering this book and helping others learn how
to build linux from scratch
I see that a couple of files wouldn't retrieve, and found the
errata. I note that the errata section contains, well not
exactly an erratum, but perhaps an omission. The replacement
URL
ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/development/glibc-2.8-20080929.tar.bz2
is actually a symbolic
which book you're reading but it isn't the
LFS 6.4 book. In that book the command is:
ln -vs libgcc.a `gcc -print-libgcc-file-name | \
sed 's/libgcc/_eh/'`
I had a user in IRC insisting they were looking at LFS 6.4, specifically
the pdf -
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads
Chris Staub wrote:
I had a user in IRC insisting they were looking at LFS 6.4, specifically
the pdf -
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/stable/LFS-BOOK-6.4.pdf.bz2
- and that it mentioned $LFS_TGT in that command. I tried checking the
pdf myself to be certain, but I'm having
I had a user in IRC insisting they were looking at LFS 6.4,
specifically the pdf -
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/stable/LFS-BOOK-
6.4.pdf.bz2
- and that it mentioned $LFS_TGT in that command. I tried
checking the pdf myself to be certain, but I'm having some
odd font
?
I don't know which book you're reading but it isn't the
LFS 6.4 book. In that book the command is:
ln -vs libgcc.a `gcc -print-libgcc-file-name | \
sed 's/libgcc/_eh/'`
I had a user in IRC insisting they were looking at LFS 6.4, specifically
the pdf -
http
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Chris Staub wrote:
I had a user in IRC insisting they were looking at LFS 6.4, specifically
the pdf -
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/stable/LFS-BOOK-6.4.pdf.bz2
- and that it mentioned $LFS_TGT in that command. I tried checking the
pdf myself to be
Yeah, verified. It's there in the PDF file. That's really odd. I don't
know who generated the PDF, but it's definitely contaminated with stuff
from trunk which were post 6.4.
That qualifies as an oops if I ever heard of one.
Refresh my memory, who did the actual release tagging again for
How it happened is up to him to explain. Perhaps he didn't
make a tag for the release, and just used trunk after the
fact when making the PDF file.
Seems there should be a checklist for making a release, I
know I have one for BLFS when I make a release.
There is (a checklist). I'm sure
43 matches
Mail list logo
