On 29 July 2010 00:51, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> it's always a good idea to be able to roll back.
>
> Did you try building the older version of png and reinstalling?
>
No, the obvious thing to do would be to recompile epiphany
against the current version (the update was to fix a
Ken Moffat wrote:
> it's always a good idea to be able to roll back.
Did you try building the older version of png and reinstalling?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 28 July 2010 18:01, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Because I don't use it and don't see the need for it (for me). I have
> no problems reinstalling a newer package over an older one. The only
> package that gives me pause for that is glibc.
>
FWIW, my ppc64 system is rather old (a bit over a year now).
On 28 July 2010 22:52, Yaacov-Yoseph Weiss wrote:
> We (at least Jeremy and myself) are referring to package management in
> a way that won't affect regular users at all, except for another optional
> command in each chapter, similar to the current "make test/check"
> commands available today.
I
Dan wrote:
> I hope no one resents my "uninformed" intrusion into this discussion.
> This may be long, so I ask forgiveness in advance.
Don't worry about either count. Such discussions are often between
developers or potential developers, and the views of the "regular users"
is forgotten. It is re
On 07/28/2010 10:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> Section 6.3 discusses PM. It says why we don't have PM in the
>>> book.
>>>
>>> There are six hints on PM.
>>>
>> These sorts of replies are discouragin
On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I guess that goes back to "Your distro, your rules". I haven't felt the
> need you have. I prefer a simpler system.
Absolutely, which is why it's nice to demonstrate in the book the simplest
method of PM, namely DESTDIR. That one extra variabl
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> One thing that makes PM very useful for me is being able
> to easily and quickly determine what package owns a particular file.
> Troubleshooting and system auditing becomes very easy.
I guess that goes back to "Your distro, your rules". I haven't felt the
need you have
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ok, that's your personal choice. But I'm curious, is there any
>> particular reason why you are personally opposed to working on a
>> project with package management?
>
> Because I don't use it and don't see the need for it (for me). I have
> no
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to someone creating an alternative version of LFS
>> with package management. If a volunteer needs the resources on the
>> LFS site, I'll be glad to set them up. However, I don't want to
>> work on such a
On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm not opposed to someone creating an alternative version of LFS with
> package management. If a volunteer needs the resources on the LFS site,
> I'll be glad to set them up. However, I don't want to work on such a
> project.
Ok, that's your
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Section 6.3 discusses PM. It says why we don't have PM in the
>> book.
>>
>> There are six hints on PM.
>
> These sorts of replies are discouraging. It says "we've dealt with
> this, no point in discussing further". It's
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Section 6.3 discusses PM. It says why we don't have PM in the book.
>
> There are six hints on PM.
These sorts of replies are discouraging. It says "we've dealt with this, no
point in discussing further". It's terse and official and unwelcoming.
13 matches
Mail list logo
