Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Archaic wrote:
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but just to make sure, I'm wanting
to add the udev-config stuff to the root of the LFS repo just like the
bootscripts are. We currently have no revision control and that is just
a hassle.
They aren't in the bootscripts are
Archaic wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:59:27PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Why don't you just add a directory /trunk/bootscripts/etc/udev/ and put
>> udef.conf and rules/d/* there? After all, the udev rules are a part of
>> the boot process, even if they are used at other times. You could
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 12:44:26AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> If you do that it will take me another thousandth of a second to update
> my working copy.
>
> *sigh*
Shall I drop the occasional 60 MB file in there, then? :)
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your oper
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:59:27PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Why don't you just add a directory /trunk/bootscripts/etc/udev/ and put
> udef.conf and rules/d/* there? After all, the udev rules are a part of
> the boot process, even if they are used at other times. You could also
> put other
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I put the rule at /etc/udev/rules.d/23-usb-rules, which comes before the
25-lfs-rules. My understanding, admittedly incomplete, is that the
first rule encountered will be executed and others skipped. Is this not
true?
This is not true.
J
Archaic wrote:
> I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but just to make sure, I'm wanting
> to add the udev-config stuff to the root of the LFS repo just like the
> bootscripts are. We currently have no revision control and that is just
> a hassle.
They aren't in the bootscripts area now?
Looking..
1. Typo in one of the command explanations
2. mv command is much longer than it needs to be
Index: trunk/BOOK/multimedia/libdriv/gst-plugins.xml
===
--- trunk/BOOK/multimedia/libdriv/gst-plugins.xml (revision 6023)
+++ trunk/BOO
On 5/7/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but just to make sure, I'm wanting
to add the udev-config stuff to the root of the LFS repo just like the
bootscripts are. We currently have no revision control and that is just
a hassle.
Any arguments against this
Archaic wrote:
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but just to make sure, I'm wanting
to add the udev-config stuff to the root of the LFS repo just like the
bootscripts are. We currently have no revision control and that is just
a hassle.
Any arguments against this?
If you do that it will tak
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but just to make sure, I'm wanting
to add the udev-config stuff to the root of the LFS repo just like the
bootscripts are. We currently have no revision control and that is just
a hassle.
Any arguments against this?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and sec
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:31:02AM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> LFS already has a rule for raw USB devices. But it doesn't set the group.
> Since the "usb" group is still in LFS, this is a bug in LFS.
Not a bug as the BLFS rule still creates it, but perhaps suboptimal from
a philosoph
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Alexander,
I'm getting frustrated here. Which is it? Should libusb have a udev
rule or not? Is the rule above the complete rule?
LFS already has a rule for raw USB devices. But it doesn't set the group. Since
the "usb" group is still in LFS, this is a bug in LFS.
The
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I believe everything jhalfs needs concerning that is taken care of
(provided, of course, that the LFS devs continue to be conscious of
updating the md5 sums along with the package version). What about you?
Do you have anything set up so that you can auto-update your FTP s
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
I'm afraid since the md5sums need to be checked and the url's can
sometimes time out or are not 100% up, my hand needs to be in the ftp
update process. So I'm not sure what else we can do besides storing
them in the book also, like BLFS, if you want jhalfs to always ha
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:38:02PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> 1032 New users and groups
> I've had private conversations about this with other devs. My opinion
> is that this is not broken. Others have philosophical differences.
> Mark as wontfix.
Yes, and those difference have yet to be r
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 07:18:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Once you get the kernel in, unless there's another release before we're
ready to branch or one is released after we branch with security fixes,
I say we freeze kernel updates.
So basically you contradicted yoursel
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 07:18:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Once you get the kernel in, unless there's another release before we're
> ready to branch or one is released after we branch with security fixes,
> I say we freeze kernel updates.
So basically you contradicted yourself. :) Aft
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:24:56PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> 1. Will the kernel be updated to the most recent available before the
> branch is cut?
Yes. And due to Ken's convincing emails, 2.6 will be updated possibly
right up to the day the book is released.
> 2. Will anything be done to
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
1032 New users and groups
I've had private conversations about this with other devs. My opinion
is that this is not broken. Others have philosophical differences.
Mark as wontfix.
This may be the right course, but I'll let Archaic make that call since
his name's on the t
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:02:01PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
The two marked high must be done before branching. The rest are textual
(expect for the n
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> That patch fixes up the errors? That's good. I've never gotten that
> error before, so I'll have to trust you.
>
> sed -i 's/tar xfv.*/& | sort/' tests/pipe.at
Oops!
I've just checked it, and it doesn't work. After the sed'ing make tries
to make tests/testsuite and it c
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
1656 Redundancy in Chapter 6 "Creating Directories"
Not a high priority, but seems to be very easy. I don't understand
why it hasn't been fixed by now. Fix it today.
That's my fault. I've just unassigend it from myself so that another
dev can pick it up.
Regards,
Ma
Please ignore
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 5/6/06, Vladimir A. Pavlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tar testsuite assumes that readdir() returns file names in the order
they are created in but this was wrong for me (linux-2.6.15.7). The
possible test failure should be noticed in the book, shouldn't it?
Also I found this link:
http://lis
Hi all,
I've noticed that the configuration of the X Window System packages
has been moved to a new section titled "X Window System Components".
Why was it done this way? This makes the X Window System packages
completely different than all the other packages in the book. Nowhere
else in the book
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Okay, it makes sense to me now. If you install GNOME in /opt, then
using the switch prevents the info file going into /opt/gnome/info
as /opt/gnome/share/info would be preferred.
You don't see this much else in the book because most things are
installed to /usr where the /
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Looking at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/report/3 ,
> we have only 8 tickets left slated for 6.2, and a couple of them are
> easy ones. In fact, none of them are marked as 'defect' and I would say
> only about half should be done before we branch for testing - the ot
I'm resending because of a problem we had with mail. The message was in
the archives, but I never received a copy back. If you already received
this, please delete it.
-- Bruce
Original Message
Subject: Re: Getting 6.2 ready for testing
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 12:38:02 -0500
F
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/07/06 12:02 CST:
> Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
> branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
Knowing this is jumping the gun just a bit, but I've got a couple of
questions concerning the 6.2 testing bran
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:02:01PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
> branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
The two marked high must be done before branching. The rest are textual
(expect for the now commonpl
Looking at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/report/3 ,
we have only 8 tickets left slated for 6.2, and a couple of them are
easy ones. In fact, none of them are marked as 'defect' and I would say
only about half should be done before we branch for testing - the others
are just data to drop
Archaic wrote:
> Please post on lfs-support. This is an error on your end, not the
> book's.
The error is on tar's end.
I've solved the problem and it's in tar tests! I wanted to send the bug
report to tar mailing list but it had already been there for nearly
tar-1.13 (look at the link in my pr
32 matches
Mail list logo
