Jim Gifford wrote:
I've actually taken the scripts a bit further. Building GLIBC and GCC
from the raw kernel headers and only using the sanitized stuff for
everything else. On a few of the lists I have seen this done with
success and found out that this is the recommended build method for
G
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
There are *many* redundancies in the section where the directory
tree is created. I started going through it, and came up with an
entirely different set of commands that accomplish the same thing
in 14 lines (one is a tad bit longer) than what is currently in
the bo
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/21/06 19:49 CST:
> It would also be nice for software to have configuration files where you
> could specify the devices as needed e.g. xorg.conf.
You guys are just being too cool for the chances to be putting
in the shameless plugs. From the configuration file
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 03/21/06 19:23 CST:
>
>> IMO, it needs to be in _one_ of the books. BLFS software, at least at
>> one time, required various symlinks. Other software beyond BLFS I know
>> still requires /dev/dvd.
>
> Some may require the links (but in my
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 03/21/06 19:23 CST:
> IMO, it needs to be in _one_ of the books. BLFS software, at least at
> one time, required various symlinks. Other software beyond BLFS I know
> still requires /dev/dvd.
Some may require the links (but in my opinion that makes it poorly
writ
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Archaic wrote:
My thoughts are that the actual devices are created properly, and
nothing in the base system needs the symlinks so I vote for moving this
ticket to BLFS.
The actual devices (/dev/hdc on my box) are created correctly, but the
symlinks are incorrect if on
Hi all,
There are *many* redundancies in the section where the directory
tree is created. I started going through it, and came up with an
entirely different set of commands that accomplish the same thing
in 14 lines (one is a tad bit longer) than what is currently in
the book that takes 19 lines.
M.Canales.es wrote:
And why not to add the CLFS udev-rules package to the udev_update branch and
see if it do their intended work?
I don't know what they are intended to do. No bugs have been reported
against the rules in the udev_update branch regarding devices not
showing up correctly (as
El Martes, 21 de Marzo de 2006 23:31, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> The actual devices (/dev/hdc on my box) are created correctly, but the
> symlinks are incorrect if one has multiple CD/DVD drives. Therefore,
> the bug is rightly an LFS one. Now, with the observation that the
> underlying devices
Archaic wrote:
My thoughts are that the actual devices are created properly, and
nothing in the base system needs the symlinks so I vote for moving this
ticket to BLFS.
The actual devices (/dev/hdc on my box) are created correctly, but the
symlinks are incorrect if one has multiple CD/DVD dri
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Archaic wrote:
CC'ing blfs-dev, but please reply to lfs-dev as that is where the bug is
currently ticketed.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1640
My thoughts are that the actual devices are created properly, and
nothing in the base system needs the symlinks so I
On 3/21/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CLFS we are taken care of it with our rules package. The reason for
> this is Ryan and I believe CLFS should provide a complete system and the
> ability to work with any devices, that should not be a responsibility on
> BLFS since they do have
In CLFS we are taken care of it with our rules package. The reason for
this is Ryan and I believe CLFS should provide a complete system and the
ability to work with any devices, that should not be a responsibility on
BLFS since they do have more things to oversee. It's a really simple to
implem
Archaic wrote:
> CC'ing blfs-dev, but please reply to lfs-dev as that is where the bug is
> currently ticketed.
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1640
>
> My thoughts are that the actual devices are created properly, and
> nothing in the base system needs the symlinks so I vote for
CC'ing blfs-dev, but please reply to lfs-dev as that is where the bug is
currently ticketed.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1640
My thoughts are that the actual devices are created properly, and
nothing in the base system needs the symlinks so I vote for moving this
ticket to BLFS.
15 matches
Mail list logo