On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Robert Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:53:12 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire
> I would think the LSB Meeting would be the appropriate forum, and Bruce
> did ask for inpu
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:53:12 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> This isn't a proper channel for an LSB discussion, but the entire
I would think the LSB Meeting would be the appropriate forum, and Bruce
did ask for input on topics to bring up. (and I don't mean this in the
whiny, argumentative way it l
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> In the context of *LFS, I don't think it really makes any sense to
> pursue the LSB.
Yes it does make sense. It makes us a part of the larger Linux
community. It enables a user to add a proprietary package if desired.
I know many LFSers may not want to use proprietary s
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Robert Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:52:56 J. Greenlees wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain
> > non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific
> > the LSB gets,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, J. Greenlees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With the LSB:
> Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a
> functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ]
> to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If ex
Just for info: recently was fixed in bzip2 1.0.5.
Description here:
https://www.cert.fi/haavoittuvuudet/joint-advisory-archive-formats.html
and fixed bzip2 1.0.5, http://www.bzip.org/
Bests,
- ptr
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 13:52:56 J. Greenlees wrote:
>
> Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain
> non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific
> the LSB gets, the less respect many people will have for it. Specific
> in software over the true base syste
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but the LSB Core specification is pretty
> sparse:
> http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/book1.html
and that is where it should stop to be the base they intend.
everything else makes it a DIS
On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:52 PM, J. Greenlees wrote:
With the LSB:
Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a
functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ]
to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If extras are
going to
be included, th
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I have been invited to attend the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit
> taking place at the University of Texas Supercomputing Center in Austin,
> TX from April 8 to 10, 2008.
>
> I applied using my LFS background and feel I will be representing the
> community there. The a
I have been invited to attend the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit
taking place at the University of Texas Supercomputing Center in Austin,
TX from April 8 to 10, 2008.
I applied using my LFS background and feel I will be representing the
community there. The agenda is at:
https://www.linux
2008/3/19, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What distros use the new version of e2fsprogs? What boot loader do
> those distro's use?
Debian Lenny. It offers a choice among a patched version of Grub
Legacy, LILO, and GRUB2.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listin
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:20:23AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> My position is that we should stay with grup 0.97 and the compatible
> version of e2fsprogs until upstream gets the problems worked out.
That works great for booting LFS, but an LFS-installed grub won't be
able to boot the host's kerne
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/3/19, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> My position is that we should stay with grup 0.97 and the compatible
>> version of e2fsprogs until upstream gets the problems worked out.
>
> This doesn't work: GRUB has to be compatible not only with the LFS
> versio
Selon Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My position is that we should stay with grup 0.97 and the compatible
> version of e2fsprogs until upstream gets the problems worked out. Of
> course, not using the most recent packages will require a note in the
> book explaining the issue.
>
Why prefer to
2008/3/19, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My position is that we should stay with grup 0.97 and the compatible
> version of e2fsprogs until upstream gets the problems worked out.
This doesn't work: GRUB has to be compatible not only with the LFS
version of e2fsprogs, but also with the hosts's
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:46:31AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> Did anyone investigate the boot loader options further? What should be done
>> for
>> LFS-7.0?
>
> Based on what I've read, I vote for switching to LILO as the default.
> This has the advantage of
2008/3/19, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does LILO still require NASM?
No, but it requires bin86.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov (writing from FreeBSD 7.0 amd64)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above infor
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:07:01 -0600, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:46:31AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> Did anyone investigate the boot loader options further? What should be
> done for
>> LFS-7.0?
>
> Based on what I've read, I vote for switchin
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:46:31AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Did anyone investigate the boot loader options further? What should be done
> for
> LFS-7.0?
Based on what I've read, I vote for switching to LILO as the default.
This has the advantage of making things easier for bringing
J. Greenlees wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> 2008/3/19, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> http://gag.sourceforge.net/
>> Requires Borland Turbo Assembler (available for MS-DOS only) in order
>> to be recompiled. LFS cannot assume that this proprietary OS is
>> installed.
>>
> hmm, I w
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/3/19, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> http://gag.sourceforge.net/
>
> Requires Borland Turbo Assembler (available for MS-DOS only) in order
> to be recompiled. LFS cannot assume that this proprietary OS is
> installed.
>
hmm, I wonder if my borland Kylix3
2008/3/19, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://gag.sourceforge.net/
Requires Borland Turbo Assembler (available for MS-DOS only) in order
to be recompiled. LFS cannot assume that this proprietary OS is
installed.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
2008/3/19, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> GAG
Not tested yet, will do now.
> http://gujin.sourceforge.net/
Tested seveal months ago, had a conversation with the author about the
QEMU bug (unfortunately, the proposed fix broke something in SUSE) and
the bogus LANG=en argument being appende
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as explained in http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2161 (a blocker),
> due to recent changes in e2fsprogs, Grub-0.97 no longer works.
Grub, Grub2, Lilo have been mentioned.
A quick google search brings as result 3:
http://gag.sourceforge.net/
25 matches
Mail list logo
