Hi guys,
After manually reviewing packages and patches, these out-of-order
patches have always bugged me, so here is a patch. Applies to LFS
trunk, moves inetutils patches before kbd, alpha orders tar security and
sparce patches.
Justin
Index: chapter03/patches.xml
=
* Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-20 19:02]:
> Now for the philosophical debate of which book should do what with udev
> rules. The 2 forerunners in the debate are:
>
> - The existence of devices comes mainly from the kernel, so everything
> should be in LFS.
>
> - Many devices are unusabl
El Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 01:14, Gerard Beekmans escribió:
> If I refused it, I don't remember doing so.
Was near the same days that we was fixing the PDF look for the LFS-6.1 printed
book.
But I can't remember the reasons to reject it then.
> The only thing I would object to is to combi
M.Canales.es wrote:
3. Housekeeping: Why is there subdirectories appendixa, appendixb, and
appendixc with only one file in each? Why not create an appendicies
directory and move all three files there.
Well, I tried to do that several months ago but Gerard refused it.
If I refused it, I don'
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 23:48, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
>> 2. The package names seem pretty large. Perhaps changing to
>> renderas="sect3" would be better. Alternatively a change to the font
>> size may only need to be a css change.
>
> See if look better now.
Yes i
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 23:48, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> 2. The package names seem pretty large. Perhaps changing to
> renderas="sect3" would be better. Alternatively a change to the font
> size may only need to be a css change.
See if look better now.
> 3. Housekeeping: Why is there sub
Hello,
ok, this is my third try to get a mail sent to this list...:
i got good news for all LFS translators.
Today i commited the patch below to the KDE repository.
This means for LFS translators: With upcoming versions of KDE (>= 3.5.3) you
can use the KDE i18n tools po2xml and xml2pot (from p
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 13:01, Bryan Kadzban escribió:
> 2.6 may not be required for udev, but it is still (AFAIK) required for
> NPTL to build. (Well, TLS in binutils, but without that, glibc won't
> build NPTL either.)
>
> So the reason may not be valid, but the requirement is, at least
Chris Staub wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On 4/20/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 22:30, Chris Staub escribió:
>>>
It wouldn't really be accurate to label Expect as a build-time
dependency of anything, because it isn't. It is needed, but o
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 4/20/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 22:30, Chris Staub escribió:
It wouldn't really be accurate to label Expect as a build-time
dependency of anything, because it isn't. It is needed, but only at
runtime, when DejaGNU runs it.
On 4/20/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 22:30, Chris Staub escribió:
>
> > It wouldn't really be accurate to label Expect as a build-time
> > dependency of anything, because it isn't. It is needed, but only at
> > runtime, when DejaGNU runs it.
>
> Thus
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 22:30, Chris Staub escribió:
> It wouldn't really be accurate to label Expect as a build-time
> dependency of anything, because it isn't. It is needed, but only at
> runtime, when DejaGNU runs it.
Thus Expect is a testsuite run-time dependency like DejaGNU.
The iss
M.Canales.es wrote:
1. Any instance of "DejaGNU and Expect" for testsuites can probably be
changed to just "DejaGNU" since Expect is run by DejaGNU.
Not sure. If done, we will have Expect no listed as a dependency for any
package thus, how could we to justify their installation?
It wouldn't
On 4/20/06, William Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> > For testing, xmms or beep media player with OSS output plugin selected
> > would work fine.
>
> Here is one with OOS only: Skype. There should be something else, but can't
> recall them right now.
I will
El Jueves, 20 de Abril de 2006 04:46, Chris Staub escribió:
> I like that new Appendix - great way to list all the dependencies. I've
> attached a patch with some dependency (and text) corrections, as well as
> a couple of packages that were left out entirely. Also, I have some
> additional comment
On 4/20/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2.6 may not be required for udev, but it is still (AFAIK) required for
> NPTL to build. (Well, TLS in binutils, but without that, glibc won't
> build NPTL either.)
>
> So the reason may not be valid, but the requirement is, at least mostly.
Am Thursday 20 April 2006 07:57, meinte Dan Nicholson :
>Hi everyone,
:-)
>Could a couple people look at the new TIN page I made? It's rendered
>on anduin at
Looks pretty nice as far as I can judge!
>http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/blfs/basicnet/tin.html
>
>The dependencies are
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The book says 2.6.2 is required because of udev. However, we don't
>> call any udev program anymore. We just build udev. Does the running
>> kernel have any affect on that? My guess is no. If that is the case
>> we can remo
First, thanks to Alexander for helping me through the jungle that is
udev. It would have taken me a long time to get as good a grasp on the
abstract concepts by reading the doco and examples.
Now for the philosophical debate of which book should do what with udev
rules. The 2 forerunners in the de
Isn't it good since the subscribe-only policy came in.
I really like this.
I'm really sending this to see if gmane posting works, so please don't
moderate it through.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
20 matches
Mail list logo
