- Original Message -
From: "Ken Moffat"
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Static libs [was Re: r9703...]
> If we do get rid of these, there is some fun and games for libz in
> module-init-tools and for libcrypt in sysvinit
I took a look at libnl2 and libnl3. Here's a couple of issues:
1. The book lists directories:
/usr/include/netlink,
/usr/include/netlink/genl,
/usr/include/netlink/netfilter,
/usr/include/netlink/route
but I think we really only need to list /usr/include/netlink, not all
the su
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:20:33PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
>> Seriously though, I would like to see LFS consider removing as many
>> static libs as possible. If nothing else, it helps massively in keeping
>> systems secure as you only have to upgrade the *1* copy of the
>>
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:20:33PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> I thought so too, but read your reply to my commit as a complaint so
> removed them. Maybe I'm a little sensitive :-)
I think a lack of sleep has that effect (and if you're developing,
you're bound to be short of sleep!). I mere
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 23:08 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:41:36PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good catch. I did look for the static libs but didn't see them
> > immediately. Fixed in r9706. Incidentally, is there a similar trick
> > for preventing those pesky
On Wednesday 04 January 2012 11:40:59 pm Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Now that I have access to SVN again, let me throw together a 1.0.1
> tarball and upload it, with the recent changes I've made. (This does
> include at least hackish support for /run.) That would have a better
> chance of working t
