2008/2/25, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The CD itself
> still does some filtering in that it drops you splat onto a command
> prompt. If you don't know how to configure a Linux system (or at least,
> open up a file to read it on the command line and follow instructions
> therein) you
> suitable for your computers. Release stable LFS more often in order to avoid
> that in the future :)
Touche ;)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> The LiveCD exists as standing proof that the LFS book is
>> sound and produces a working system.
>
> Here I disagree. Because of numerous deviations and wagons of extras, it
> proves
> nothing. Here is a counterexample:
> http://www.l
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Whatever the starting point, the fact is that in such cases I don't want
> to have to install a Linux system just so I can install LFS on the same
> machine. That way I waste partition space. Maybe the space can be
> repurposed later on (as a /home partition when all is
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The LiveCD exists as standing proof that the LFS book is
> sound and produces a working system.
Here I disagree. Because of numerous deviations and wagons of extras, it proves
nothing. Here is a counterexample:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2007
Hello all,
Just a heads up that man-db-2.5.1 needs --sysconfdir=/etc to install its
config file in the proper place, otherwise it goes into /usr/etc.
Robert
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information p
Hugo Grauls wrote:
> Without the LiveCD I would never have been able to get LFS6.2 up and
> running. Biggest worry is to have the right basic tools at hand to build
> from scratch, i.e. the adequate releases of GCC, linker, header files
> etc ...
Knowing what software to install is one of the p
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3)
Hi,
In the glibc installation step in section 6.9, we say the following:
[quote]
The glibc-libidn tarball adds support for internationalized domain names (IDN)
to Glibc. Many programs that support IDN require the full libidn library, not
this add-on (see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/vi
On Sunday 24 February 2008 12:50:17 am Aaron Matsumoto wrote:
> I've been a longtime LFS builder and would like to thank all of you
> for your support and great work.
>
> I was getting ready for a fresh build of the Development LFS (in
> preparation for some further work on [independent] OS coding)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/24/2008 03:05:38 AM:
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> The LFS project is almost nine years old. LFS 1.0 was released on
> December 16, 1999. That was the year I had moved to Canada, before my
> immigration was even finalized. Earlier that year I started on the
I've been a longtime LFS builder and would like to thank all of you for
your support and great work.
I was getting ready for a fresh build of the Development LFS (in
preparation for some further work on [independent] OS coding). I
started to download the packages as listed in Section 3, and notice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/19/2008 12:21:22 PM:
> I was playing w/ links in the linux framebuffer, and I came across this
error
>
> Error when loading compiled-in font: png_do_rgb_to_gray found nongray
pixel.
> libpng error: png_do_rgb_to_gray found nongray pixel.
See http://links.twibright
Everybody brought up valid points, as usual. Here's my two cents worth.
Instead of placing myself in the shoes of an average user, let me come
at this from a personal point of view - a nine year old LFS old timer.
Over the years I have found the LiveCD helpful.
If I'm going to install LFS on a
> it would be great for some college to offer a class centered around LFS
> - start with a box full of parts and the LFS LiveCD at the beginning of
> the semester and end up with a LAMP server at the end, all built from
> source.
You know, it's done already. Over the years quite a few universit
> But, there is a definite "lull" in the community currently as I am sure
> you will be aware. As a personal observation, I think the project needs
> to go back to it's roots and emphasise the educational angle more
All the points you brought up, as well as others, are certainly valid. I
agree
Is it possible to integrate alfs with livecd, at least for the base core of
the livecd?
robert
pgpIZknrSok7F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> we can look into updating it when a change makes it necessary.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't work. Such change may be artificially delayed to the last
> moment before the release (as it was the case with ata_piix pretending to
> pick
> up suppor
> > It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> > killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
> >
> > 1) It is currently unmaintained
> > 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure
> > a Linux system
> > 3) It leads to less testing from o
On Monday 25 February 2008 10:37, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to
Hi Jeremy,
I'm not sure if my opinion would count as I'm not a formal developer of LFS,
more of an user trying to track some new packages and trying to inform if
there's any anomaly in some of them, but, well... here goes my two cents:
LiveCD or not LiveCD? LiveCD without any need of thinking a
Selon Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
To build IPCop for everyone, we made a different solution in place than a LiveCD
that is simplier.
We have
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Howard_apfc6 wrote:
>> - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>
> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support
> requests.
> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be filtered out, e.g., by
> telling
> them to install an
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
I'd agree with that. It's a fact: bugs will happen. Obviously it
stinks if someone tries boot and their hard drive isn't detected, but
the LiveCD does work for a lot of people. I don't
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> It may be
> easier to start from scratch instead of "updating" this quirky CD.
If we were to go back and start from scratch for the next CD, I would
start with an _absolutely_ minimal CD and get rid of nearly all of the
BLFS packages) so that we could focus on gene
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy your argument. How often would the above
> problem arise?
It did happen. Look how I had to delay the release of a stable CD due to a
single bug about Intel IDE and SATA controllers. I have received only five
replies (counting a even personal blog
Hello,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/contribute.html#lfsbook still sells the
LFS-6.0 book, which is horribly outdated and will lead to gcc or glibc
compilation failure when starting from the modern hosts. Given that there is
another option to donate money to the project (via PayPal), I th
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> we can look into updating it when a change makes it necessary.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't work. Such change may be artificially delayed to the last
> moment before the release (as it was the case with ata_piix pretending to
> pick
> up suppor
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> we can look into updating it when a change makes it necessary.
Sorry, this doesn't work. Such change may be artificially delayed to the last
moment before the release (as it was the case with ata_piix pretending to pick
up support for intel IDE controllers but actually fail
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote (somewhat reordered):
>
>> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it. A live
>> CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. For someone to
>> use it, with a more current version of LFS, they will just need t
Bruce Dubbs wrote (somewhat reordered):
> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it. A live
> CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. For someone to
> use it, with a more current version of LFS, they will just need to download
> the sources separately.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it. A
> live CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. Just
> leave it alone for now and we can look into updating it when a change
> makes it necessary. For someone to use it, with a more curr
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3
Hello Everyone,
It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
1) It is currently unmaintained
2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
Linux system
3) It leads to less testing from other hos
34 matches
Mail list logo
