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 Is that paragraph simply out-of-date?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

Reply via email to