On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:53:26PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> The enhanced rc/functions aren't completely current, but can be made so
> if anyone speaks up that still wants it, else I'm pulling it.
I use the enhanced, but only for boot logging. If you pull it, will you
be making incompatible cha
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing on the installation pages
for Autoconf and Automake. Perhaps the Test Suite depends?
Yeah.
The appendix looks good.
I do think that the dependencies should be pulled out of the individual
packages. No need to duplicate it in Ch
Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:28:43AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>> I have it at http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/depsupdate/index.html -
>> look at the installation pages for Autoconf and Automake, and the new
>> "Appendix C".
>
> Appendix C looks great. Is it safe to assume that
Archaic wrote:
Appendix C looks great. Is it safe to assume that the install and test
deps are going to be pulled out of the individual package pages, then?
Well, with that patch as-is, each package still has dependency info in
its installation page. Then again, maybe it would be better to el
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:28:43AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> I have it at http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/depsupdate/index.html -
> look at the installation pages for Autoconf and Automake, and the new
> "Appendix C".
Appendix C looks great. Is it safe to assume that the install and test
Archaic wrote:
On second thought, Manuel's patch, that would put all dependency info
into a single file and have each individual package page link to a
section on the deps. page, seems to look good. I applied it and rendered
the result and I already like it.
He is going to commit that patch s
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:18:54AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> Mostly I'm just looking for feedback on what that page should look like.
> I can certainly put the actual info in...I'm just not sure how it should
> all look. Is the kind of page I posted earlier (with fewer bulleted
> lists) goo
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
M.Canales.es wrote:
3) Besides getting the udev_update branch in, this info should be one of
the next things to go in so we can finally close
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/684
Chris, what's the current status? What sort of help do you need to get
this in
Archaic wrote:
Hotplug should either be moved to the contrib directory, or removed
outright. If removed outright, the stuff in contrib that relies on it
should be removed as well.
That was to be my next message to dev. Anybody still need hotplug for
the other install targets? Same for the n
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> It is... mostly. We were still thinking of putting in a page that shows
> an entire dependency list, weren't we? That sort of information belongs
> with that Ticket. See this thread:
Yeah. But that might be cause for downgradi
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:27:21PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
The merge is planned for late on the 14th/early 15th, correct? I've got
Well, today actually. But the merge can happen a day before the
bootscripts. I'll just keep the link pointing to the udev_update
scripts.
Okay
Archaic wrote:
Jeremy, 684 appears to be fulfilled. Can you verify?
It is... mostly. We were still thinking of putting in a page that shows
an entire dependency list, weren't we? That sort of information belongs
with that Ticket. See this thread:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-ar
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:49:34PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Do you want a patch for 1765? I can do that for you in a few minutes.
Patches are always welcome, even if they are preemptive. :) If you
create one, please attach it to the ticket and make a comment. I can't
really make this commit
George Boudreau wrote:
>
>
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> George Boudreau wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:42 CST:
>>
>>>It is fast enough for me and does a full LFS build in well under 2
>>> hours and can render a book in minutes.
>>
>> I have a 500mhz p3 that every hour looks to see if there ar
Randy McMurchy wrote:
George Boudreau wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:42 CST:
It is fast enough for me and does a full LFS build in well under 2
hours and can render a book in minutes.
I have a 500mhz p3 that every hour looks to see if there are updates
to the BLFS and LFS books. If so,
Consider this an informal ticket. These are from emails still sitting in
my mailbox but currently unticketed. If you know of more, please either
open a ticket or start a new thread.
To keep things organized, please do not reply to this email for
discussion of these items. Reply to the threads ment
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:45 CST:
>
>> IMO, it would be nice to wontfix it and put the svn version md5sums in
>> the book.
>
> There just isn't much we can do for the 6.1 book. We don't have an
> errata page, which means we'd have to change the HT
George Boudreau wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:42 CST:
>It is fast enough for me and does a full LFS build in well under 2
> hours and can render a book in minutes.
I have a 500mhz p3 that every hour looks to see if there are updates
to the BLFS and LFS books. If so, it renders. LFS SVN re
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:37 CST:
> Should we just close ticket 1644 as wontfix?
>
> Randy?
Give me until tomorrow to look at this. The issue is that many of
the Perl Modules referenced are not available any longer (from CPAN)
and can only be retrieved via our BLFS package ser
Archaic wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
>> By the time you go to bed in TX, most, if not all, tickets should be
>> re-classified.
>
> Okay, with one exception, 1765 (the LFS license ticket), I've rearranged them
> as it seemed necessary using the following view:
>
Ken Moffat wrote:
But, I won't be surprised if a 3GHz system is not as fast as you
think! Sure, the memory (PC3200, or 2700, or DDR2?) is faster than
what I guess must be PC100 in the old box, but the cpu will need
more clocks per instruction. It will definitely be faster in the
short term,
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
>
> By the time you go to bed in TX, most, if not all, tickets should be
> re-classified.
Okay, with one exception, 1765 (the LFS license ticket), I've rearranged them
as it seemed necessary using the following view:
http://wiki.linuxfroms
#1657: Chapter 5 Stripping Notes -- need updating to reflect current numbers
-+--
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: defect | Status: assigned
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 05:13:52PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Overall, progress is great, but I also want a better feel of what is
> coming up.
By the time you go to bed in TX, most, if not all, tickets should be
re-classified.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your oper
Archaic wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 04:52:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> It would be useful if one or more LFS editors would go over the list and
>> do an update to help other projects, especially BLFS, plan for what is
>> coming up.
>
> Apparently you haven't checked your lfs-book email
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 04:52:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> It would be useful if one or more LFS editors would go over the list and
> do an update to help other projects, especially BLFS, plan for what is
> coming up.
Apparently you haven't checked your lfs-book email in a bit. ;)
--
Arc
Checking the LFS tickets:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/report/1
I see that there are several (5) tickets that don't have a milestone
attached. One ticket targets udev_update with a 6.2 milestone.
Also note the dates. There is one from 2003, one from 2004 (still
targeted to the future),
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:41:14PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
sorry for the late reply, turns out my postfix config was
inadequate once I switched to mutt, but the spam filters only caught
me this week :-(
>
> Obviously no longer sufficient for what LFS needs today.
>
> 1 GB of
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:57:12PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
>
> "Create some rules that work around broken sysfs attribute creation
> timing in linux-2.6.15:"
This is still in. Either it needs to be pulled, or the version needs to
refer to the entity. Alex?
--
Archaic
Want control, educatio
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:57:01AM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention this yesterday. Though I'm sure Alexander is
> aware, others may not be. There is a test suite for Man-DB but it
> is in a separate download and requires DejaGnu. DejaGnu is
> available at this point in Chapter
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 06:43:56PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The attached patch does the following:
>
> * Kills the words "hotplug event". These things are officially renamed to
> "uevents".
> * Kills "udev". There is no such command anymore, but
> it is still appropriate to refer
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 04:20:18PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how much was changed, but it seems at a minimum the
> hotplug startup script should be removed. However, I'm sort of like
> you Jeremy, not up to speed with this branch, but it seems the
> bootscript version *must* be
El Jueves, 13 de Abril de 2006 20:47, Archaic escribió:
> The rendered book can be found at:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-20060413/
Good.
I hope to can do some builds with jhalfs+ICA/farce this weekend :-)
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:
The rendered book can be found at:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-20060413/
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
While going through the diff, I was trying to weed out comments that
were either fixed or no longer apply. I don't know the status of all of
them, and weeding them out also means that I'm the only person who will
see those lines standing out in the diff. I'd like more eyes to look at
it, so I've de
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:15:59PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> ", however since it is in LFS, Berkeley DB is an unstated prerequisite
> for several BLFS packages."
>
> or some variation.
I like that. Added it to my TODO.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating s
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these words on 04/13/06 12:42 CST:
>
>> + Also, if you would prefer to skip Berkeley DB entirely
>> + and use GDBM instead, see the BLFS instructions located at
>> +
>
> Just an FYI, but this has a *very* negative effect on BLFS wher
Archaic wrote these words on 04/13/06 13:02 CST:
> And just my 2 cents:
>
> 1) GDBM is perfectly valid (and maybe preferred?) for this purpose,
This may be true, however, the community determined via discussion
that BDB would be what was installed in the LFS book. The new
phrasing effectively ma
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/13/06 13:01 CST:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:48:23PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Shouldn't this have been discussed first?
>
> It was discussed - on the same list where you spotted the commit.
Things pertaining to the development of the LFS book are no
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:48:23PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Shouldn't this have been discussed first?
It was, but I don't remember the resolution (and I don't see a URL to
the thread). I'm in the process of merging udev_update. If this change
is to be reverted, it will have to be after th
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:48:23PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Shouldn't this have been discussed first?
It was discussed - on the same list where you spotted the commit.
Furthermore the ticket has been in the system for ages, and it was
suggested by one of the BLFS devs. Lastly, LFS doesn't te
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these words on 04/13/06 12:42 CST:
> + Also, if you would prefer to skip Berkeley DB entirely
> + and use GDBM instead, see the BLFS instructions located at
> +
Just an FYI, but this has a *very* negative effect on BLFS where we
assume that BDB is installed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:22:47AM -0400, David Fix wrote:
>>
>> If you use Windows, there's a really nice text editor
>> (available for Linux also), that's called EditPad Lite... It's
>> free. It does all sorts of nice stuff, including having a function
>> for saving
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:22:47AM -0400, David Fix wrote:
>
> If you use Windows, there's a really nice text editor (available for
> Linux also), that's called EditPad Lite... It's free. It does all sorts of
> nice stuff, including having a function for saving in DOS or Unix format.
> :) Check
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:27:21PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> The merge is planned for late on the 14th/early 15th, correct? I've got
Well, today actually. But the merge can happen a day before the
bootscripts. I'll just keep the link pointing to the udev_update
scripts.
--
Archaic
Want con
19 апреля 2006 г. приглашаем посетить консультационный семинар по теме:
«НАЛОГОВАЯ БЕЗОПАСТНОСТЬ КОМПАНИИ. СПОСОБЫ ЗАШИТЫ ИНТЕРЕСОВ НАЛОГОПЛАТИЛЬШИКА
ПРИ ПРОВЕДЕНИИ НАЛОГОВЫХ и МИЛИЦЕЙСКИХ ПРОВЕРОК»
Программа:
1.Налоговые проверки:
Защита прав налогоплательщика при проведении камеральных и вые
46 matches
Mail list logo
