Re: Comments on Trac ticket mails
on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 7:56 Gerard Beekmans wrote: " Maybe a change that combines both and use the old Bugzilla Subject method: " " [LFS Ticket #abc] Summary here " [BLFS Ticket #def] Summary here " and so forth. If I may suggest, the stuff in the square brackets isn't usually the most important (which is what one wants to see first) stuff anyway. So, *if* it's a benefit to put it in at all, why not _post_pend it instead of _pre_pend it, ie Summary here [LFS Ticket #abc] Summary here [BLFS Ticket #def] and so forth. $0.002 R -- http://www.quen.net Pay your own bills. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Overriding permissions from udev sample rules
on Sunday, October 14, 2007 at 10:56 Bruce Dubbs wrote: " Actually dialout is a bit dated too. Who uses a modem any more? Not " anyone I know. I, being stuck out here in the boonies and for other reasons, still use dialup. I'm also using vgetty to set up a smart answering machine. (I know, who uses land lines anymore, right;-?) R -- Pay your own bills. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: What next? [Was: Re: LiveCD or No LiveCD?]
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:07 TheOldFellow wrote: " provided " the educational stuff is retained. But /what/ educational stuff? The LFS slogan is your distro - your rules but the way the educational stuff in lfs works seems to me to more often resemble YOUR education - OUR choices - the way WE insist that you address them. How many people here are learning, in LFS, exactly the same thing, at exactly the same level, in exactly the same way? And why should anyone feel good about demanding that anyone else also do exactly that? Each of us is an expert about some things at some level and each of us is an absolute ignoramus about other things at other levels. Each of us wants to change some of that both in ourselves and in others and each of us is absolutely right and correct in each of those things. Why isn't it YOUR education - YOUR choices - in the way that works best for YOU? How detailed and low level does each of us want to get? Be able to pick apart a makefile, do build configurations better by hand than automatically, squash bugs and send brilliant patches upstream? There are experts here that routinely do this and much more. These people have my genuine and undying admiration. Could I learn to do that, at least to some degree? Yes, I could. Do I want to? After a lot of thought, the answer is no, I don't. So for actual use, I'm doing an actual distro like many who are using lfs. Even if I did decide to do it and did get good at it, what next? Am I to get even more detailed at it? Kernel hacking? A great firewall distro like IPcop? If I go the detailed route, where do I stop? Not before I am capable, in six days or less, of building my own chip fab and carving my own ones and zeroes out of wood? And if I did all of this and more successfully, and had a life and made a living and saw one or more other people once in a while and was entirely content and happy about it too, why should I insist that anyone (nevermind everyone:) should do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way? For me, the answer is that I would like to have systems that I mostly understand, that I can tweak more or less successfully in ways that I can fix when I break them, that I can understand in considerable detail what happened to them when I change them and quickly, successfully and with confidence revert to what I had previously and, above all, that I can use. I need to decide for me what I need to know to be able to do these things and how to learn them. I find lfs an invaluable resource in being able to move in those directions and I greatly appreciate any help I get from lfs or these lists or elswhere. I may be wrong, but I'm still going to do my education, as well as my distro, my way. Thanks for reading. $0.002 R -- Pay your own bills. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Planning an overall direction for LFS
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 12:28 Benjamin John wrote: " there, what I want is how to build my own system As one of the ones "to be educated", and when I'm learning by breaking and by doing again, and again, and yet again, what I fantasize and dream about, from the learning point of view, is a great big multi-level UNDO "button". Keeping copies of the build in two partitions and overwriting when desired gives me a crude form of some of that. I know there are better ways but it is hard to find the time to learn everything all at once, especially without an easy way of starting over right at the very beginning. Maybe it's not possible. R, -- Pay your own bills. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Planning an overall direction for LFS
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 7:15 R.Quenett wrote: " the time to learn everything all at once, especially without an easy " way of starting over right at the very beginning. Maybe it's not correction: without going right back to the very beginning sorry R -- Pay your own bills. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz
on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 9:46 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: " What's even more important for educational purposes, Debian rules are incoherent " between various Debian packages. As one of those being educated by all of this (in more ways than you can possibly imagine, a genuine and heartfelt thankyou to all), please allow me to comment. I do not want any package manager at all. I do want a way to be able to return with confidence and certainty to some arbitrary point as close as possible to just before my last idiotic fat fingered stupid n00b screwup. Some people might say that and a package manager are the same things. I don't think they are. R, -- Two problems with lawyer jokes: 1)lawyers don't think they're funny, 2)nobody else thinks they're jokes. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Fwd: Re: 2.4/2.6 kernels
Archaic wrote: " We need your input. This is meant to be a community effort. Please read " and reply with comments and/or suggestions. I am not competent to comment on the hlfs project but I am competent to comment on how I might use it. So, from that pov only, fwiw, I offer the following. I would not expect to use hlfs on a desktop in the forseeable future. Period. Full stop. In my set up, I see hlfs (or equiv) as going on old hardware sitting between me and the jungle. In an extension of the basic linux philosophy as I understand it (do one thing, only one thing, and do it well, very well), all that I would hope for from hlfs would be that it could not easily be penetrated, compromised or subverted, especially not clandestinely. I would hope for both ingress and egress (for the eventual detection of the effects of my moments of idiocy when I click on the wrong thing on a web page or bring in a compromised floppy or...) maintenance, surveillance, logging, analysis and reporting tools. Also, thankyou _very_ much to those who are doing the actual work on this project. R -- http://www.quen.net "Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it. No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Handling the change from the temp phase to the final target phase
on Friday, May 27, 2005 at 7:58 Archaic wrote: [...] " setups should be handled in hints and *not* in the book. Too many layers " of abstraction will turn people off. What's the purpose of supporting " more methods if it turns off the core audience of the book? I think we " need to really consider what hoops we are willing to jump through to " gain certain benefits. Pardon me for butting in here but, to me in my ignorance, the one benefit that would justify (again, to me - I'm not trying to speak for anyone else) almost anything would be the 'purity of the build' (which I understand to mean the new build containing as close to zero as possible code resulting from anything but the new source) even in very small increments. I thought that was why the book had gone in its present direction. Was I wrong? R -- http://www.quen.net "Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it. No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
