On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:46:41PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I believe (but could be wrong) that X can be built and installed without
> any devices in /dev
But any and all post-LFS package building is irrelevant in this context.
If one is to follow the LFS book, one must have devices present
Richard A Downing wrote:
> However, some people build, for instance X11, in the chroot (very
> tempted to let my spellchecker change this to cheroot :) environment,
> and they might need some of the device nodes. Joe's way might be best,
> however.
Sorry to be a bit late to this thread.
I belie
Standard Fonts link seems to be dead.
New link from sourceforge.
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript/ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11.tar.gz
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'm still concerned that we won't load all modules correctly though;
> some of the distro rules load various SCSI modules dependent on the
> SYSFS{type} variable. I'd appreciate it if someone with the
> necessary hardware could test to see what does or doesn't work.
Oh
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
(The rule that we have has SUBSYSTEM=="usb", which will only load
modules for USB devices. This is wrong -- if the user builds a PCI
device's driver as a module, that module will never get loaded!
Yep. In my defence though, USB was the easiest subsystem for me to
test,
Richard A Downing wrote:
> I still can't see how to hotplug the usb printer though. Can someone
> tell me which rules in the lfs set are supposed to moad the usblp
> module, and it's module dependencies usbcore, ohci_hcd and ehci_hcd?
Here's what I understand happens: (If this is wrong, someone
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 12:33:44PM -0600, Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
This kind of "punishment" is more appropriate in a kindergarten than in
this community. Bruce and Matthew are our leaders and I respect their
decision, but I deeply disagree with them.
The emails of some a
Greg Schafer wrote:
Matt, you haven't accounted for the changed handling of html docs in this
release. Hint: drop the sed and add --enable-html.
Thanks Greg. Just out of interest, how did you find out about this
change? I assume you had to have found out simply by reading
`./configure --he
matthew wrote:
> Author: matthew
> Date: 2006-02-19 13:31:54 -0700 (Sun, 19 Feb 2006)
> New Revision: 7381
>
> Modified:
>trunk/BOOK/chapter01/changelog.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter01/whatsnew.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter03/packages.xml
>trunk/BOOK/chapter06/sed.xml
>trunk/BOOK/general.
Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
This kind of "punishment" is more appropriate in a kindergarten than in
this community.
IMNSHO, so was the behaviour that lead to it!
Bruce and Matthew are our leaders and I respect their
decision, but I deeply disagree with them.
And others have voiced similar conc
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 12:33:44PM -0600, Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
>
> This kind of "punishment" is more appropriate in a kindergarten than in
> this community. Bruce and Matthew are our leaders and I respect their
> decision, but I deeply disagree with them.
The emails of some are also more appro
Richard A Downing wrote:
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="usb", MODALIAS=="*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe "
This one is from udev-085/etc/udev/redhat/udev.rules, looks like it
might be worth a try
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*", MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe
$modalias"
I can't say whether
* Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-19 12:19]:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
> >As I have said in private emails, Jeremy did nothing but defend his good
> >name from a bully.
>
> As somewhat of an outsider, although an avid reader and occasional
> commenter, I would like to publicly concur with
Richard A Downing wrote:
So now you add public ridicule to the punishment of the innocent.
I suggest you killfile me, as you can't take my 'privileges' away.
And once again you respond without actually considering the motivation
behind my actions. FWIW, and given your recent backlashes again
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Hopefully this is a little more informative than 'This didn't work but
this did." :-) Does anyone have any additional concerns or objections?
Yes. Benchmarks (time unzip -t bigfile.zip >/dev/null). They show that,
due to non-use of PIC code and
Dan McGhee wrote:
DJ, do you have the time to be a little more specific? I'm completely
in the dark about what you said here. I'd like to try that jdk build
again.
Yes, but not yet. The previous was against 6.9 in /usr/X11R6. I've not
completed the build against 7.0. I fell asleep at my
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/08/06 13:29 CST:
rm /usr/lib/pkgconfig/mozilla-ns*.pc
ln -sv nss.pc /usr/lib/pkgconfig/mozilla-nss.pc
ln -sv nspr.pc /usr/lib/pkgconfig/mozilla-nspr.pc
Okay...I'm two weeks too late to add to this thread2, but I'm doing it
anyway. :-) The _correct_ solut
DJ Lucas wrote:
Well, I was successful with jdk-1.5.0_05 build from source and OOo
build. Unfortunately, the configure check is broken for BDB in
OOo-2.0.1, so I used the internal version without the db4.4 patch.
Configure couldn't determine the version string, but I don't imagine
that'll be
Hi folks,
No doubt you'll all be aware of the flamewar that recently hit the lists
regarding trac and bugzilla. Whilst disagreements are expected on this
list, personal attacks are not appreciated by anyone involved.
As Bruce and I cannot condone such action, we decided to suspend Randy
and
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> However since mine is a a non-branch SVN converted
>> to Udev (no hotplug) I may have missed something.
>
> One immediate thought. Did you update the rules file to follow what's
> in the udev branch? i.e. remove the callouts to run_udevd and
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
