On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:37:25 -0700, Justin R. Knierim wrote:
> Hello everyone:
>
> As most of you know, the website team is trying to get the new beta site
> ready for service as soon as possible. One of the last few things left,
> is moving the FAQ to the new site. The FAQ hasn't been updated
Hello everyone:
As most of you know, the website team is trying to get the new beta site
ready for service as soon as possible. One of the last few things left,
is moving the FAQ to the new site. The FAQ hasn't been updated in 6
months and needs some attention. Before we do all that work mo
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > Should I expect /mnt/lfs/dev to be busy when I come to shut down after
> > building 6.1-pre2 (in an xterm, if it matters) ?
>
> Not if you were using the version specified in that book. Later
> versions kick off a daemon, which o
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Justin R. Knierim wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > Should I expect /mnt/lfs/dev to be busy when I come to shut down after
> >building 6.1-pre2 (in an xterm, if it matters) ? Nothing showed in lsof
> >or fuser, and I was able to remount r/o.
> >
> > Maybe this isn't new and I'v
Ken Moffat wrote:
Should I expect /mnt/lfs/dev to be busy when I come to shut down after
building 6.1-pre2 (in an xterm, if it matters) ?
Not if you were using the version specified in that book. Later
versions kick off a daemon, which one has to kill prior to unmounting.
I can't think what
Ken Moffat wrote:
Should I expect /mnt/lfs/dev to be busy when I come to shut down after
building 6.1-pre2 (in an xterm, if it matters) ? Nothing showed in lsof
or fuser, and I was able to remount r/o.
Maybe this isn't new and I've just not noticed before ?
Was /mnt/lfs/pts and /mnt/lfs/shm
Should I expect /mnt/lfs/dev to be busy when I come to shut down after
building 6.1-pre2 (in an xterm, if it matters) ? Nothing showed in lsof
or fuser, and I was able to remount r/o.
Maybe this isn't new and I've just not noticed before ?
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als
David Jensen wrote:
Kim McCall wrote:
In BLFS, Chap6, sec2, " Emacs-21.4a," which I access as
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/emacs.html
under "Short Descriptions" you list "b2m" twice, with different
descriptions.
I'm reasonably certain that the second one wants to be
David Jensen wrote these words on 07/07/05 08:46 CST:
>>The "which" program should be added as an optional dependency for
>>Fluxbox - it's needed for the "fluxbox-generate_menu" script to work.
>
>
> Added, thanks for the heads-up.
Actually, no dependency should have been added, and it probabl
Kim McCall wrote:
In BLFS, Chap6, sec2, " Emacs-21.4a," which I access as
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/emacs.html
under "Short Descriptions" you list "b2m" twice, with different descriptions.
I'm reasonably certain that the second one wants to be "ctags" instead.
Thank
In BLFS, Chap6, sec2, " Emacs-21.4a," which I access as
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/emacs.html
under "Short Descriptions" you list "b2m" twice, with different descriptions.
I'm reasonably certain that the second one wants to be "ctags" instead.
Thanks for all your incre
Bernard Leak wrote:
The word is "programme". Yes, it really is, unless you
are writing American. It is a curiosity of the LFS book
that it's not instantly obvious whether it's written in
American English or not. The use of "alternative"
suggests that it isn't mid-American,
I've checked the issue with make-3.81beta3 - it works just fine. I
hope they'll release it soon.
About 'Big super duper big Makefile' :) I've phrased it this way for
sake of simplicity. Actually, we've develop some sort of build system
for LFS. We have one general Makefile, which loads and eval'ua
13 matches
Mail list logo
