Chris Staub wrote:
I've started listing every package dependency (will even include what's
already in the book) here -
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/dependencies.txt - it's easy to lose
I'll take a look at that tomorrow.
dependencies that depend on a specific order. I don't know what th
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 3/2/06, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you guys check your findings against what is being rendered in
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-alphabetical
I'll try to look tonight and see if what's in the bug is in the book.
Dependency lis
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/02/06 18:38 CST:
> There are several options: build vim early, open another window, use
> scripts like jhalfs. If we are going to an alphabetical approach, then
> lets leave vim at the end. Choices 2 and 3 above don't need it early
> and users are free to do 1
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Moving vim up in the order is only a personal preference and goes
> against the entire purpose of this change, IMHO. We're trying to show by
> the order itself, what depends on what. Nothing *depends* on vim, so
> leave it at the end.
There are several options: build vim
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Gerard, some time ago you said you like to have Vim built as early as
possible. Is this still the case? I believe it can be moved right
after the current location of Readline without suffering any
regressions.
Like Jeremy said elsewhere, it is a personal preference.
Howe
On 3/2/06, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could you guys check your findings against what is being rendered in
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-alphabetical
I'll try to look tonight and see if what's in the bug is in the book.
> As I understand it, ICA, tool-ch
LFS Trac wrote:
Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Also, Gerard asked some time back that Vim be built as early as possible.
We could probably move it right after Perl with no detrimental effects.
Is this still the case?
The comments on the ticket are getting long and difficult to read -
th
Hiya,
Primarily meant for Dan and Chris. I'd like an update on this ticket and
a brief summary on what has been done and what is still outstanding in
order to close this ticket.
Could you guys check your findings against what is being rendered in
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> I have been playing with this for a while, but there seem to be a few
> differences in the HLFS system I have and the one you used to build
> Xorg6.9. The mesa patch, for instance, fails.
>
> package xorg:/usr/src/xorg/xc/extras/Mesa> patch -Np1 -
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
So that means I'm on the brink of work, but am generally procrastinating
to get anything done. That sounds like what's happening today. Can't
seem to get started on my regular work.
/me hands Gerard his last name.
There ya go. Have some initiative. ;)
--
JH
--
http:/
Dan Nicholson wrote:
defconfig'. Oops. Isn't there a target `make allconfig'?
Yes there is. Check 'make help' for other targets too.
Other targets of interest could be 'allmodconfig' and 'allyesconfig'
--
Gerard Beekmans
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
On 3/2/06, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In that case, would compiling many extra modules as part of our SVN
> > testing be helpful or annoying? Usb-audio is not something I use, but
>
> I'm thinking it would not hurt to build kernels with as much enabled as
> we can.
I feel
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> In the LFS cleanfs script, we have the construct:
>>
>> cd /tmp &&
>> find . -xdev -mindepth 1 ! -name lost+found \
>> -delete || failed=1
>>
>> Since I test build a lot of apps in /tmp, this instruction can take a
>> very long time upon bootup.
Richard A Downing wrote:
See below. Suggest you hold off on changes 'til Monday.
Even better then.
Ag, I noticed you submitted a patch for 'su.' Thanks for your work but
it seems we may not be using the patch if the new shadow package is
released after the weekend as indicated by shadow's
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
In the LFS cleanfs script, we have the construct:
cd /tmp &&
find . -xdev -mindepth 1 ! -name lost+found \
-delete || failed=1
Since I test build a lot of apps in /tmp, this instruction can take a
very long time upon bootup. Can we change it to make the process a bit
f
Craig Jackson wrote:
Matt Wrote:
this bug has gone unnoticed thus far I'd say that
usb-snd-audio isn't widely used by LFS users and therefore the bug
should be left until 4.0.3 comes along and fixes it for us.
In that case, would compiling many extra modules as part of our SVN
testing be helpf
Dan Nicholson([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:56:09PM -0800:
>
> Ag,
>
> Is the patch you submitted just against current CVS? Seems like the
> most changes are in login.c. Not that that's wrong. Just curious.
>
Sorry for the delay,Dan.
Yes,i was working with the current cvs tree.
A
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
>> resolved.
>
> Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss now if
> we want to downgrade shadow back to 4.0.13, or wait for its next release
> if there is a known release date.
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
