Marty _ wrote:
Good answer, never investigated udev to be quite honest, just thought
it was another form of devfs from the guide.
To add to your note, there isnt a difference between the two, ive just
got so used to slackware's /dev style I couldnt handle the entire
directory tree the devf
M.Canales.es wrote:
Hi!
I'm thinking to start soon the following XML changes on the cross-tools
branch, if there is no complaints:
.- Sources indentation. Like the current one in BLFS.
.- Some fixes and small changes in the tagging.
.- To add all possible XInclude tags to avoid duplicated
Hi!
I'm thinking to start soon the following XML changes on the cross-tools
branch, if there is no complaints:
.- Sources indentation. Like the current one in BLFS.
.- Some fixes and small changes in the tagging.
.- To add all possible XInclude tags to avoid duplicated text before to start
up
Hi,
I'm crossposting this to -support and -dev in the hopes of solving this
problem.
On my first boot of my LFS system, using bootscripts 3.2.1, I get the
following error:
FAILURE:
Unexpected failure running fsck. Exited wi
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 12:33:39PM +0100, Marty _ wrote:
> never investigated udev to be quite honest, just thought it
> was another form of devfs from the guide.
It is, in that it dynamically manages the /dev directory. But it does
this using hotplug events from the kernel, not code inside the
David Jensen wrote:
I'm guessing current development has moved to fsf, but the download link
is still to kernel.org which i think is hjl?
It should be fixed?
Fixed. Thanks for that, David.
--
Jeremy Huntwork
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscra
I'm guessing current development has moved to fsf, but the download link
is still to kernel.org which i think is hjl?
It should be fixed?
---
David Jensen
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:45:31AM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> >The obvious answer (for me anyway) to "how do I parse a config file" is
> >"use flex and bison to build a grammar".
>
> And the obvious answer to me (being a C++ kinda guy) is to use 'Spirit'
> from the
Marty _ wrote:
Why doesnt someone do something sensible and mount devfs to /.devfs
Uh... because we don't use devfs? ;-)
Bring back the old devices style.
udev does (almost completely, anyway), with the rules file(s) we use.
One difference is that you won't see devices for drivers you don'
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> The obvious answer (for me anyway) to "how do I parse a config file" is
>> "use flex and bison to build a grammar".
>
> And the obvious answer to me (being a C++ kinda guy) is to use 'Spirit'
> from the boost libraries (http://www.boost.org/) :)
Marty _ wrote:
> Why doesnt someone do something sensible and mount devfs to /.devfs
Uh... because we don't use devfs? ;-)
> Bring back the old devices style.
udev does (almost completely, anyway), with the rules file(s) we use.
One difference is that you won't see devices for drivers you don't
>
> It's corrected now, the patch is actually suppose to be -2 and not -3.
> Should be updated by the next rendering.
>
> Thanx for the report.
FWIW, I forgot to say that the 3.4.3 patch suceeds, as follows, anyway:
patching file gcc/config/alpha/linux-elf.h
patching file gcc/config/arm/linux-
It's corrected now, the patch is actually suppose to be -2 and not -3.
Should be updated by the next rendering.
Thanx for the report.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Link from the Required Patches section of
Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20050523
version held at
http://www.uk.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/
to the
gcc-3.4.4-specs-3.patch
mentioned in the text "5.12. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass 2" isn't resolved
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patc
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Please list your comments as a go or no go.
No go, Jim.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/lex.html
suggests that it's a reasonable expectation for 'lex' to be installed
on a Unix system, hence that's what we'll do. It's not
15 matches
Mail list logo
