Great :-) I can't wait to see.
robert
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 17:37, Robert Baker wrote:
> Well I have about the same schedule as you Robert, but I am willing to
> throw my hat in the ring to help maintain HLFS-Stable. I have a big
> interest in seeing that we can work out a hardened s
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> > Now we just need to push out the new udev-config tarball. Let me know
>> > if you need files moved around or anything.
>>
>> Should be done in r7796. I got the tarball into the right directory,
On 9/20/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Now we just need to push out the new udev-config tarball. Let me know
> if you need files moved around or anything.
Should be done in r7796. I got the tarball into the right directory, I
think.
Or: I can get at it from
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Now we just need to push out the new udev-config tarball. Let me know
> if you need files moved around or anything.
Should be done in r7796. I got the tarball into the right directory, I
think.
Or: I can get at it from downloads.linuxfromscratch.org, at least. I'll
have t
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Actually, these rules will require udev-098 or higher, which isn't in
the book yet -- which means if I commit this change, we'll have to hold
off on building the udev-config tarball until we update the udev
version.
Apologies for the delay. udev-100 is now in. If you wou
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Done in r7793.
And, after looking at the udev-100 bug, it appears that I missed one.
All the ENV{PHYSDEV*} variables are deprecated; the ENV{PHYSDEVBUS} that
almost everyone uses in 05-udev-early.rules (to wait for the sysfs "bus"
symlink to appear) should be replaced by SUB
On 9/20/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, but I wanted to make sure nobody else did that either, before
udev-100 got into the book.
But an appropriate changelog and svn commit message should help with that.
So, it looks like the rules have been updated and Matthew updated the
On 9/20/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> What kind of incompatibilities are we talking about? udev?
>
> IIRC, yes -- I think we started doing that when some kernel changed the
> layout of /sys. More recently, there's a kernel version float
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> What kind of incompatibilities are we talking about? udev?
>>
>
> IIRC, yes -- I think we started doing that when some kernel changed the
> layout of /sys. More recently, there's a kernel version floating around
> somewhere that uses /sys/clas
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Now the way it works is that you personally have to spin a new
> tarball, put it in downloads.linuxfromscratch.org, and update the LFS
> book source to reference the new version.
Yeah, but I wanted to make sure nobody else did that either, before
udev-100 got into the book.
Joe Ciccone wrote:
> What kind of incompatibilities are we talking about? udev?
IIRC, yes -- I think we started doing that when some kernel changed the
layout of /sys. More recently, there's a kernel version floating around
somewhere that uses /sys/class/block instead of /sys/block for block
devi
LFS Trac wrote:
> #1882: 3.2 All Packages, "Do not use version 2.6.17 or later kernels ..."
>
> Thanks. That's a holdover from LFS-6.2. I'll change that.
>
I can't say I've ever seen serious incompatibilities in between kernel
versions with bootscripts. "Potentional incompatibilities with the
b
12 matches
Mail list logo
