It seems now that LFS is ready to go into the world that CLFS has been
in for a while. There seems to be a lot of discussions, that are going
to be a duplication of work, and no one from LFS reaching out to the
CLFS team for input on what issues we have seen and what you will cross.
It was prop
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Last time this was discussed, the general view seemed to be that
> pure64 was a step far enough. Care to remind me what the advantages
> of multilib builds are ?
For me: Flash. Either "standard" flash, or nspluginwrapper-flash --
both require 32-bit libs somewhere. (nsplugi
On Dec 5, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
Last time this was discussed, the general view seemed to be that
pure64 was a step far enough. Care to remind me what the advantages
of multilib builds are ? I'm looking at the "whole system" here,
most of which is in BLFS (or, for existing multil
William Harrington wrote:
> So anyone gonna fix the archives? None of the archives can be
> downloaded.
>
> No archive from any mailing list can be downloaded.
Forwarded to lfs-dev so that at least some of the proper people see it.
I don't recall the admins group address right off the to
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 03:58:24PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-trunk
>
> There is no technical hindrance to bringing in multilib, the changes are
> minimal. The effect is not so minimal. I would like to know people's
> thoughts on how to deal
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> There is no technical hindrance to bringing in multilib, the changes are
> minimal. The effect is not so minimal. I would like to know people's
> thoughts on how to deal with multilib in LFS. Specifically, how do we
> handle for x86, where multilib is not an option? Do w
...Mostly.
With revision 8755, the new build method from DIY is in place with the
exception of support for multilib. (More on that in a second.)
I tried to make as many textual changes as I could to keep the accuracy
of the book on a high level, but I'm sure I missed some things that
reference
Gordon Schumacher wrote:
> But what is the further intent here
The intent is for the subject line to reflect the general content of the reply.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
TheOldFellow wrote:
> If you MUST reply to a digest, do try and get the Subject right.
My error, I missed it on that message. I *do* try - since I did get it
right on my other messages. I forgot this time.
But what is the further intent here - the digest shouldn't exist? That
one should use i
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Check this out: http://wiki.debian.org/Grub/Grub2
>
> Yes, they have good manual pages in Debian. Thanks for the link. Let's
> hope this documentation will be accepted upstream.
>
> It is still worth mentioning that Debian uses a SVN snaps
10 matches
Mail list logo
