On 2/22/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't really know much of anything about the subject myself, but it > seems strange that it says /dev/shm is "optional" when it's described as > required during the LFS system build. Is that paragraph simply out-of-date?
I don't know much about the subject either, Chris. Here's the thread for the original flame war that resulted in that wording, though: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2003-October/039106.html Maybe someone who understands the uses of SysV shared memory can shed some light on the current situation. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page