On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:13:16PM -0600, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
> I didn't like the network scripts, especially the ifconfig.* directory
> structure.
<..>
> I would like the network scripts to be modular,
<..>
Without a directory with conf files in it, how would you achieve
modularity? Seems
I didn't like the network scripts, especially the ifconfig.* directory
structure. It seemed too complex, especially for my needs. I looked at
some Linux books to see other ways to set up network cards. I finally
decided to have a configuration file, in my
case, /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.d/ath0, ho
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
If multilib, are we creating a /lib64 and keeping /lib 32-bit,
or will it be /lib32 and /lib as 64-bit? Should we allow the user to
decide which of these options or paths to take and support all decisions?
Best stay /lib /lib64, trust me...
I'm still working on hackery for
Some notes as I attempt to make the lfs bootscripts more
wireless-friendly:
Currently the networking scripts allow only for one default gateway.
However, each interface should have it's own. When trying to do that
manually with ip, it bombs. Since I still prefer net-tools I decided to
try it with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> M.Canales.es wrote:
>> Nothing impossible, I think, but very difficult to implement.
>
>
> Ok. Thanks Manuel for responding on that. :) Perhaps it's best then, to
> leave this idea to mature for a while and re-visit it once
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hey All:
>
> Need some feedback on how exactly we're going to handle 64-bit in the
> Cross-LFS book, so bring on the comments! ;)
>
>
> However, now that 64-bit is gaining popularity in a number of archs, the
> question of how to handle that in the book comes up. For exa
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hey All:
Need some feedback on how exactly we're going to handle 64-bit in the
Cross-LFS book, so bring on the comments! ;)
Basically, the cross-lfs book will be multi-arch, in that, once you've
picked the architecture of the target system, the one you're wanting
to run L
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> So, in a nutshell, my opinion is that we should do multilib as a default
> for 64-bit archs with /lib and /lib64 directories.
>
This sounds sane, or at least what most distros seem to do.
I'm still getting my head around multilib, am I right in th
Why not put 64bit into /lib and 32bit into /opt/lib?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Well, I'm certainly no expert on the subject, (yet! ;) ), I'm learning
the process as I go, but from what I can see so far, gcc, when
building for 64-bit expects there to be a /lib64 directory. To try to
force it to do /lib32 and /lib requires a lot of wrangling. But there
M.Canales.es wrote:
Is there some "de facto" standard used by commercial distros?
Not sure. I just grabbed a gentoo stage3 tarball for amd64 and it seems
they have it layed out like this:
/lib -> /lib64
/lib32
/lib64
/usr/lib -> lib64
/usr/lib32
/usr/lib64
--
Jeremy Huntwork
--
http://linuxfromsc
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
So, in a nutshell, my opinion is that we should do multilib as a
default for 64-bit archs with /lib and /lib64 directories.
Care to explain the basis on which you're forming that opinion for those
of us paupers not able to afford such exotic hardware
El Viernes, 6 de Mayo de 2005 20:43, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> So, in a nutshell, my opinion is that we should do multilib as a default
> for 64-bit archs with /lib and /lib64 directories.
>
> This has not yet been decided on for the book (which is why I'm asking
> this question here), so if you
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
So, in a nutshell, my opinion is that we should do multilib as a default
for 64-bit archs with /lib and /lib64 directories.
Care to explain the basis on which you're forming that opinion for those
of us paupers not able to afford such exotic hardware? :)
I'd imagine it's s
Hey All:
Need some feedback on how exactly we're going to handle 64-bit in the
Cross-LFS book, so bring on the comments! ;)
Basically, the cross-lfs book will be multi-arch, in that, once you've
picked the architecture of the target system, the one you're wanting to
run LFS on, all instructions
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 05/06/05 13:00 CST:
> Yep, the build completed without errors even without the
> --disable-docs-build specified.
Thanks, Matt. I will update the book to reflect your observations.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[G
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Viernes, 6 de Mayo de 2005 17:34, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
Nothing impossible, I think, but very difficult to implement.
Ok. Thanks Manuel for responding on that. :) Perhaps it's best then, to
leave this idea to mature for a while and re-visit it once we have the
full boo
El Viernes, 6 de Mayo de 2005 17:34, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> Proposed setup:
>
> multi-arch
>
>|_Common
>|
>| |_Entire Book (defaults)
>|
>|_Arch1
>|
>| |_Symlinks to ../Common if nothing arch specific
>| |_Arch-specific pages
>|
>|_Arch2 (You get
This question is mostly for Manuel, of course, if anyone else knows the
answer...
Currently, with the multi-arch books, from what I can see, we render the
*whole* LFS book once for each architecture into separate sub
directories. Obviously this takes x as many times as longer as the
previous L
19 matches
Mail list logo
