On 03/05/2014 01:58 AM, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> oh didn't know that LFS planned to migrate to git :( I hope the mail on
> lfs-book will be as usable as they are with svn, because it the easiest
> way to follow the updates to translate efficiently. I know that git,
> used on CLFS, gives we
oh didn't know that LFS planned to migrate to git :( I hope the mail on
lfs-book will be as usable as they are with svn, because it the easiest
way to follow the updates to translate efficiently. I know that git,
used on CLFS, gives weird commits reports and it's hard to use them.
Well I reall
Hello everyone,
I'm in process of looking at what would be necessary and how hard it
would be to convert current LFS repositories from subversion to git.
One of the steps (optional though) is conversion of subversion user
names to proper git format "Real name ".
I have extracted the following us
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:37:32AM -0600, William Harrington wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> eudev wants gperf and gtk-doc. We could add gperf to LFS and probably
>>> do away with both gperf and the gudev build in BLFS. gtk-doc needs
>>> sev
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:37:32AM -0600, William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > eudev wants gperf and gtk-doc. We could add gperf to LFS and probably
> > do away with both gperf and the gudev build in BLFS. gtk-doc needs
> > several other prerequisi
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:23:27 +0100
> From: "Armin K."
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS-7.5: Distrowatch mix-up re sysd/non-sysd.
>
> On 03/04/2014 05:50 PM, akhiezer wrote:
> >> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:54:09 -0600
> >> From: Bruce Dubbs
> >> To: akhiezer ,
> >
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:56:43PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >>
> > Too late, I've put it as an option for peopl using LFS before 7.5.
>
> I saw that. It's ok. We may want to remove later though.
>
Should be easy enough to grep for, when the time comes. I'm always
cons
William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> eudev wants gperf and gtk-doc. We could add gperf to LFS and probably
>> do away with both gperf and the gudev build in BLFS. gtk-doc needs
>> several other prerequisites and is not a candidate for LFS, but I
>> do
On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> eudev wants gperf and gtk-doc. We could add gperf to LFS and probably
> do away with both gperf and the gudev build in BLFS. gtk-doc needs
> several other prerequisites and is not a candidate for LFS, but I
> don't
> think that's needed.
In C
On 03/04/2014 05:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 04:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> I've been working on udev and have got it to build with the systemd-210
>>> source. The problem is that it is getting more and more intertwined
>>> with the rest of systemd requiring thin
On 03/04/2014 05:50 PM, akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:54:09 -0600
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: akhiezer ,
>> LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS-7.5: Distrowatch mix-up re sysd/non-sysd.
>>
> .
> .
>> Can you do the notification for us? I'm
Armin K. wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 04:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been working on udev and have got it to build with the systemd-210
>> source. The problem is that it is getting more and more intertwined
>> with the rest of systemd requiring things that don't seem to be applicable.
>>
>> For in
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:54:09 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: akhiezer ,
> LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS-7.5: Distrowatch mix-up re sysd/non-sysd.
>
.
.
> Can you do the notification for us? I'm not really concerned about who
> get the 'cred
Em 04-03-2014 12:05, Armin K. escreveu:
> I've missed one step (for future reference), see below:
>
> On 03/04/2014 04:04 PM, Armin K. wrote:
>> On 03/04/2014 03:33 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>> Em 03-03-2014 11:30, Armin K. escreveu:
On 03/03/2014 03:06 PM, thomas kaeding wrote:
>
On 03/04/2014 04:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been working on udev and have got it to build with the systemd-210
> source. The problem is that it is getting more and more intertwined
> with the rest of systemd requiring things that don't seem to be applicable.
>
> For instance,
>
> filea.c
I've been working on udev and have got it to build with the systemd-210
source. The problem is that it is getting more and more intertwined
with the rest of systemd requiring things that don't seem to be applicable.
For instance,
filea.c requires a function from
fileb.c which requires a functi
akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:56:36 +
>> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS-7.5: Distrowatch mix-up re sysd/non-sysd.
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:30:15 +0100
>>> From: "Armin K."
>>> To: LFS Developers Mailin
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:56:36 +
> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS-7.5: Distrowatch mix-up re sysd/non-sysd.
>
> > Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:30:15 +0100
> > From: "Armin K."
> > To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> > Subject: R
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:30:15 +0100
> From: "Armin K."
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] LFS-7.5: Distrowatch mix-up re sysd/non-sysd.
>
> >>> Looks like distrowatch have got some mix-up re sysd/non-sysd branches of
> >>> lfs:
> >>>
> >>> front page:
> >>> http://dist
19 matches
Mail list logo
