On 5/20/12 7:09 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
[snip - a number of good, thoughtful questions]
I'm going to have to let your questions brew for a while before I can
reply to them. Perhaps someone else will have an opinion regarding them
in the meantime...
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/li
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/vim/vim-7.3-fixes-524.patch
>>
>>
>>
>> Apply with:
>>
>> patch -Np1 -i ../vim-7.3-fixes-524.patch
>>
>> and then build normally.
> Just did it. Thank you very much, Bruce. How fast!
>
> Couple of observations:
>
On 5/20/12 5:34 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> OK, then what's wrong with a tarball of binaries that we have created
> for this purpose? There could be a tarball of the base LFS system and
> then additional tarballs for certain packages or groups (e.g. xorg) of
> packages.
This method does not collect
On 05/20/2012 07:09 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
[putolin]
> The more I think about this, the less happy I am. Point 2 doesn't
> really help editing BLFS as far as I can see (upgrading a package
> usually needs several builds - typically, for me, a first to see if
> it actually works when I use it, t
On 20-05-2012 15:41, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> 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 wee
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 09:26:31AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1. Adjust LFS/BLFS to auto-generate build recipes for individual
> packages that a packaging tool can use to create binary packages with
> meta information included such as dependency tracking.
>
> 2. Store 'off
On May 20, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/20/12 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> This exact reason, for the record, is why I really dislike binary
>>> distros. I *never* choose the same set of dependencies that are
>>> optional in the source, as the distro does. And because when
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 04:34:11PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> >
> > I think perhaps the point is being missed here. The purpose of the
> > proposal (creating and providing binaries) isn't for the _reader's_ use,
> > (if someone found them and wanted to use them that's t
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/20/12 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> This exact reason, for the record, is why I really dislike binary
>>> distros. I *never* choose the same set of dependencies that are
>>> optional in the source, as the distro does. And because when they ran
>>> ./configure, they
On 5/20/12 2:18 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> In other words, I think it'd help to only use packages to simplify
> (mostly BLFS) testing, but make them semi-public for people who really
> want them. Don't use them at all in the actual build instructions (what
> would be the point? :-) ), but generat
On 5/20/12 3:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> This exact reason, for the record, is why I really dislike binary
>> distros. I *never* choose the same set of dependencies that are
>> optional in the source, as the distro does. And because when they ran
>> ./configure, they added a --with-foo flag, the
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> FWIW...
>
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Fortunately, that is not a deal breaker for me if the
>> readers get the same treatment (which seems to be the case), but this
>> does hard code optional dependencies for the pre-packaged installations.
>> This is both good and bad. From a d
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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 t
FWIW...
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Fortunately, that is not a deal breaker for me if the
> readers get the same treatment (which seems to be the case), but this
> does hard code optional dependencies for the pre-packaged installations.
> This is both good and bad. From a development standpoint, it won't
Thanks for the replies, Bruce and Ken.
On 19-05-2012 13:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
