Just a reminder that we did at one time adopt a patch naming convention:
pkgname dash version dash short underscore descriptive underscore name
dash patchrev3.patch
That is, the name should be:
thunderbird-9.0.1-libpng_1.5-1.patch
not
thunderbird-9.0.1-libpng-1.5-1.patch
This is not a big de
For those who saw me moaning on lfs-book about libnl-2.0 (for me,
NetworkManager doesn't build against it), a summary of what is going
to happen:
in LFS - nothing! Matt spotted that iproute2 only uses the
headers, it doesn't link against the lib. For that, 2.0 is fine.
With only 2.0 installe
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:49:20PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> No, I don't edit /etc files daily, but I certainly do when I'm setting
>> it up. Occasionally, I want to change things in /etc/dircolors,
>> /etc/profile.d/, /etc/vimrc, etc :)
>>
>> Actually libnl-3 has several
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Ken Moffat wrote:
OK. What sort of things do you change in /etc ? For me, mostly
building desktops (with shared /home), the idea of having to tweak
files in /etc to get it working properly is uncommon.
For me, mostly maintaining kind of servers, pretty sure the majority of
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:49:20PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> No, I don't edit /etc files daily, but I certainly do when I'm setting
> it up. Occasionally, I want to change things in /etc/dircolors,
> /etc/profile.d/, /etc/vimrc, etc :)
>
> Actually libnl-3 has several executables to manage
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:41:47AM +0100, Uwe Düffert wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not sure whether this was the original intention, but to
> me this kind of distinction does make sense. Maybe not from the
> perspective of a user of a *LFS system, but for a user of *LFS, i.e.
> a system builder/maintainer
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:39:03PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Ken you do know that if both libpackage.so and libpackage.a exist and
> the link line has -lpackage, the loader always selects the .so version,
> right? The developer has to go out of the way to do static links in
> that case.
>
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:01:21PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> 4. I don't really like /etc for the /etc/libnl/{pktloc,classid} files.
>> that's not the kind of thing a user would change, especially with an
>> editor. I'd suggest /var/lib.
>>
> I'm perhaps too late to the
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:01:21PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
4. I don't really like /etc for the /etc/libnl/{pktloc,classid} files.
that's not the kind of thing a user would change, especially with an
editor. I'd suggest /var/lib.
Why do you think user
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:01:21PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> 4. I don't really like /etc for the /etc/libnl/{pktloc,classid} files.
> that's not the kind of thing a user would change, especially with an
> editor. I'd suggest /var/lib.
>
I'm perhaps too late to the party here, but (in t
--- Em seg, 9/1/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> De: Bruce Dubbs
> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] Security LFS7.0
> Para: "BLFS Development List"
> Data: Segunda-feira, 9 de Janeiro de 2012, 19:06
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> > $ uname -a
> > Linux VMWLFS70 3.2.0 #1 SMP Sun Jan 8 22:25:33 BRT
> 2012 i686
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:31:31 -0500
> Walter Webb wrote:
>
>> The blfs book for 2012-01-03 (I also checked 2012-01-07) has a patch
>> for firefox-9.0.1. The compile failed with the patch, and succeeded
>> without the patch. In the patch itself it says:
>> Description:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:35:56AM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
> I would like to know if the choice "--enable-shared --disable-static" is
> safe, and what are the consequences of "--disable-nis".
>
Noting your $subject, you do realise that in blfs you are
responsible for your own secur
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 22:01 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> 4. I don't really like /etc for the /etc/libnl/{pktloc,classid} files.
>> that's not the kind of thing a user would change, especially with an
>> editor. I'd suggest /var/lib.
>
> Agreed. Does it warrant a comma
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:31:31 -0500
Walter Webb wrote:
> The blfs book for 2012-01-03 (I also checked 2012-01-07) has a patch
> for firefox-9.0.1. The compile failed with the patch, and succeeded
> without the patch. In the patch itself it says:
> Description: Fixes compiling firefox-9.0 wit
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 22:01 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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
16 matches
Mail list logo
