On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 22:34 -0800, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Reading through the patch:
>
> Matt Burgess wrote:
> > And here's the latest version that I've just kicked off a build for.
> > This one even has the kmod.xml file in it that the last version
> > didn't. It applies on top of Bruce's fstab
Reading through the patch:
Matt Burgess wrote:
> And here's the latest version that I've just kicked off a build for.
> This one even has the kmod.xml file in it that the last version
> didn't. It applies on top of Bruce's fstab and bootscript changes in
> r9710.
> + remap="configure">BLKID_CF
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> Not *required* but systemd will issue a warning on boot if /etc/mtab
>> is not a symlink to /proc/mounts
>
>
> I'm pretty sure this is actually required if you use systemd's internal
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 22:15 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Seeing as I assigned ticket #1998 (Udev-177) to myself before I realised
> that it wasn't as simple a package upgrade as usual, I thought I'd take
> a stab at getting LFS to work with it. Attached is the patch I'm about
> to do
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Steve Crosby wrote:
> Not *required* but systemd will issue a warning on boot if /etc/mtab
> is not a symlink to /proc/mounts
I'm pretty sure this is actually required if you use systemd's internal mount
facilities -- it does not manage mtab and the file will be em
On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs. I
> assume you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the grub boot
> line?
It is. When the system boots always mounts the "rootfs" device. If you use
ini
Ken Moffat wrote:
> part the first: background (I seem to have lost any ability to
> precis things - I blame building 109 gnome-3/related packages)
>
> For a lot of packages, we have the stock:
>
> "To test the results, issue: make check."
>
> Personally, I very rarely test packages in my own
--- Em sex, 16/12/11, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> De: Bruce Dubbs
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS7.0
> Para: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Data: Sexta-feira, 16 de Dezembro de 2011, 1:31
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Try the scripts below. Change the make script to
> match the instructions
> for
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeremy Huntwork"
> To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Udev-177 & Kmod-3 WIP patch
>
>
>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Huntwork"
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Udev-177 & Kmod-3 WIP patch
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >
> > I'd be curious what's in /proc/mounts as well, but eh wh
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> /dev/root / ext3
>> rw,relatime,errors=continue,barrier=0
>
> Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs.
> I assume you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the
> g
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> /dev/root / ext3 rw,relatime,errors=continue,barrier=0
Interesting. I wonder if this is a side effect my using an initramfs. I assume
you have a monolithic kernel and you are using root= on the grub boot line?
JH
--
http://linuxf
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> My objection is that mtab has
>> /dev/sda5 / ext3 rw 0 0
>>
>> where /proc/mounts has
>> rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
>>
>> 'rootfs' doesn't tell me much. I can see that it is the rootfs because
>> it's mounted on /./dev/
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> My objection is that mtab has
> /dev/sda5 / ext3 rw 0 0
>
> where /proc/mounts has
> rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
>
> 'rootfs' doesn't tell me much. I can see that it is the rootfs because
> it's mounted on /./dev/sda5 and ext3 give me informati
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> I'd be curious what's in /proc/mounts as well, but eh whatever.
>
> Is there a reason LFS doesn't just symlink /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts?
My objection is that mtab has
/dev/sda5 / ext3 rw 0 0
where /proc/mounts has
On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> I'd be curious what's in /proc/mounts as well, but eh whatever.
Is there a reason LFS doesn't just symlink /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts?
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsub
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:47:10 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't want to step on Matt's toes, but I'm going to make a change in
> the bootscripts and section 8.2/8.3 in a couple of minutes.
No probs, Bruce. As per $subject, my patch is WIP, so feel free to make
any changes. My patch workflow le
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>> What I actually did was to include DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
>
> ...
>
> Oh, *that* option! Heh. I had forgotten it existed. :-)
>
>> As a possibly interesting aside, even though the DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
>> seemingly does the right thing here, it does not cause
Matt Burgess wrote:
> What I actually did was to include DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
...
Oh, *that* option! Heh. I had forgotten it existed. :-)
> As a possibly interesting aside, even though the DEVTMPFS_MOUNT
> seemingly does the right thing here, it does not cause /dev to be
> listed by either 'df' o
just running a quick install of systemd on a livecd host installation
to track dependencies\etc
in addition to documented requirements in README
kernel >= 2.6.39 (LFS7 ok)
libudev >= 172 (LFS7 ok)
dbus >= 1.4.0
libcap
there are at least the following other dependencies
intltool (requi
20 matches
Mail list logo
