On 5/19/12 5:27 PM, lfs-dev.neophyte_...@ordinaryamerican.net wrote:
> The "pacman" reference here is to https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
> not http://pacman.com/en/
> Correct?
Haha. Yes, that's right. Unless you can find a way to package up
distributable packages with the arcade game.
On 5/19/12 7:29 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Certainly you have the privs, but I would like to have the capability of
> doing make DESTDIR=$DEST without being root. I don't particularly like
> the developer saying "you have to be root to run install". It's my
> system, not the developer's.
I believe
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On May 19, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>
>>> I have long suggested that LFS and BLFS move to installations
>>> from DESTDIR (or equivalent)
>> I do use DESTDIR to check the installation of most packages, but there
>> are some where it just d
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM, jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com wrote:
> On 5/19/12 1:21 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
>> I have in the past worked on LFS-6.8 and have a completed pacman build
>> for it.
>
> Nice!
>
>> Sharing the work using pacman would be great, maybe we can exchange notes?
>
> Assum
On May 19, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> I have long suggested that LFS and BLFS move to installations
>> from DESTDIR (or equivalent)
>
> I do use DESTDIR to check the installation of most packages, but there
> are some where it just doesn't work. Actually, any pac
On May 19, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> It's easy to create a tarball of binaries for a specific
> architecture (686, x86_64, etc) and extract that to an empty partition.
> A rebuild of the kernel, setting up grub, and a script to handle some
> specific things (fstab, ip address, etc)
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Well, the way I saw this working out in my head - we don't really
> advertise the binary package repository, although it would be available
> for anyone to use. Hence, "semi-public". The focus would still be on the
> book and letting a user choose her own path. The opti
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I have long suggested that LFS and BLFS move to installations
> from DESTDIR (or equivalent)
I do use DESTDIR to check the installation of most packages, but there
are some where it just doesn't work. Actually, any package that decides
to do a chown or use the -g or -o opti
On 5/19/12 1:15 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> My hope is that build order is still a manual process where the user
> determines build order herself. Dependency checking is done only at
> build time and that optional deps remain optional. If there will be
> automation, how do we determine what optional deps
On 5/19/12 1:21 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
> I have in the past worked on LFS-6.8 and have a completed pacman build
> for it. I wanted to build a desktop system from LFS/BLFS but it was too
> much work for me. I have not gone further because BLFS is a beast as
> you say. I completed a server using LF
On 5/19/12 1:15 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> What separates LFS from say Arch, Gentoo, T2... at that point? No mile
> long USE flags or complex switching scripts I presume, but I know little
> about the other two. I've included some of their work in BLFS in the
> past, but that is about it.
Well, the way
On 05/19/2012 09:26 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I've been holding back bringing this up on-list for a while because I
> intended to do the bulk of the work and then present a working system to
> the community for comment and review. I still intend to do that, but
> given some recent discussions, I
On 05/19/2012 08:26 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I've been holding back bringing this up on-list for a while because I
> intended to do the bulk of the work and then present a working system to
> the community for comment and review. I still intend to do that, but
> given some recent discussions, I
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 09:19:10AM -0700, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of course,
> discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
>
> While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others stick to a
> "
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of
course, discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
>
> While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others
stick to a "main" one and leave the minor versions/correctio
I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of course,
discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others stick to a
"main" one and leave the minor versions/corrections in their repositories to be
I've been holding back bringing this up on-list for a while because I
intended to do the bulk of the work and then present a working system to
the community for comment and review. I still intend to do that, but
given some recent discussions, I think the time is right to bring this
up and see w
17 matches
Mail list logo
