On Wednesday 20 December 2006 22:45, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/20/06 16:30 CST:
> > I'd like to know other opinions about pursuing a KDE update right
> > now.
>
> I think it would be nice to do the KDE update, but it is a lot
> of work, and a couple of months after
On Thursday 30 November 2006 01:57, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> $ cat /etc/udev/rules.d/20-alsa.rules
> # Give the audio group ownership of sound devices
> SUBSYSTEM=="sound", GROUP="audio"
> SUBSYSTEM=="snd", GROUP="audio"
>
> # ALSA Devices
> # When a sound device is detected, restore the volume setti
On Sunday 12 November 2006 17:50, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/12/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/11/06, Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've noticed that Glibc (2.5) overwrites the scsi headers
> > > installed as part of the "linux headers" step (linux 2.6.18.1).
> >
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 17:59, thorsten wrote:
> And tried to stop them with
> killproc -p /var/run/openvpn-1.pid openvpn and
> killproc -p /var/run/openvpn-2.pid openvpn respectively.
>
> When both instances are up and I tried to stop one of both, the right
> openvpn process gets killed and the
On Sunday 29 October 2006 14:19, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> killproc -p /var/run/ppp-eth0.pid pppd
> [snip]
> However, the result is not as I expect. If there is indeed only one
> pppd, it is terminated, waited for, and a green OK appears on the
> screen. If there is another (unrelated) copy of
On Thursday 26 October 2006 09:34, Kris van Rens wrote:
> cat > /etc/udev/rules.d/26-network.rules << EOF
>
> I found that there is a udev rule '26-modprobe.rules' already; I'm
> not sure how this works out as the filenames are different but the
> priority number for udev is the same. It might just
On Thursday 21 September 2006 00:41, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> > Done in r7793.
>
> And, after looking at the udev-100 bug, it appears that I missed one.
> All the ENV{PHYSDEV*} variables are deprecated; the ENV{PHYSDEVBUS}
> that almost everyone uses in 05-udev-early.rules (to
On Monday 18 September 2006 07:35, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> One thing I'm concerned about with Dan's proposal of aligning all the
> users and groups up between the various *LFS books is of our motto
> "Your distro, your rules". If we start mandating all the users and
> groups that folks should hav
On Sunday 17 September 2006 23:02, Robert Connolly wrote:
> I like it. It works well. Thanks.
>
> Is it practical to add a --selftest option which checks known values,
Seems like something that should go in a seperate script to me,
distributed with the digest script: it is something that is only
On Sunday 17 September 2006 22:53, Robert Connolly wrote:
> On Sunday 17 September 2006 12:38, Alex Merry wrote:
> > I happen to agree with the FSF that programs should not change
> > their behaviour because their name has been changed, but that's
> > just personal prefer
On Sunday 17 September 2006 21:57, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I don't get any errors that would seem to indicate it requires a user
> or group named "nobody". Now yes, in the sources it does try to drop
> privileges by first looking up the "nobody" user in /etc/passwd, then
> dropping all supplementar
On Sunday 17 September 2006 22:13, Christoph Berg wrote:
> I also built a glibc 2.4 based system multiple times. Everything
> works well and I also noticed the nogroup/nobody issue. Although it
> looks, like vol_id can resolve these error. But booting looks better
> with added nogroup/nobody.
udev
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 04:56, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Drepper's checked something in to address the problem and closed the
> bug reports if anyone's interested. I haven't tested it.
>
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3040
> http://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-cvs/2006-q3/msg00278.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:15:04PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> too difficult to provide this. (I'm ignoring the problem you've
> described with the ethX interfaces right now as I'm not exactly
> following it.)
I don't know if this will help, but this is how I understand it:
The point of the per
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 10:33:52PM +0400, Vladimir A. Pavlov wrote:
> Everything seems ok except -fmath-errno doesn't work as expected.
> gcc-4.1.1 was built directly from gcc.gnu.org without any patches.
What were you expecting it to do? As I understand it, -fmath-errno is
the default. -fno-math
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 06:51:42PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Here is a bug report I've been meaning to send in for months. Upon
> booting my machine this evening, I decided to send it in. I get an
> error, that suspends the boot process, which says it is a problem
> with the LFS bootscripts.
>
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:33:26PM +0400, Vladimir A. Pavlov wrote:
> I mean a user able to read a file can disassemble it and find security
> holes in it.
Although it would probably be easier to download the sources and look at
those...
Alex :-)
--
Pippin
Computer Monkey to the Pelican
www.ox
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 07:46:02PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 4) We currently use a sed to avoid a supposed buffer overflow in
> translated versions of `who'. This is unnecessary now as it's been
> fixed in a different manner, so the sed can be removed from the book.
From what I read of th
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:17:17PM +0100, Richard Downing wrote:
> So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't think what
> it is!
HLFS?
Alex :-)
--
Pippin
Computer Monkey to the Pelican
www.oxrev.org.uk, www.corpusjcr.org, www.rev.org.uk
pgpWLzymYuM1G.pgp
Description: PGP s
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:06:58PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >Alex Merry wrote:
> >>On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:58:54PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >>This patch should fix it.
> >>
> >
> >I think this is a c
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:58:54PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Right. I get the same thing here. What I meant was, I think it's a bug
> in udevtest. The same comment "/* remove sysfs_path if given */" is
> used in both udevtest and udevinfo. However, it only works in
> udevinfo.
The problem is t
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:15:51AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> So, I'd rather save the kernel source in another directory. Maybe
> /usr/share/linux. That's where I put them in my builds. You can always
> move the tree to whatever location is needed by another package which
> _really_ needs the ke
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:53:21PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >On 8/14/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>In 25-lfs.rules there is,
> >>KERNEL=="fb[0-9]*", MODE="0620",GROUP="video"
> >>Shouldn't the mode be 0660?
> >
> >That's a good question.
>
> I
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 01:33:54PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> In 25-lfs.rules there is,
> KERNEL=="fb[0-9]*", MODE="0620",GROUP="video"
> Shouldn't the mode be 0660?
I can't say for certain, but my guess is that the reason is to prevent
a user peeking in on another user's display. However
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:39:21PM +, Peter wrote:
> Sorry, I was a bit sloppy in the last message.
> My question summarized - Is the following
> command OK?
>
> mkdir -pv ${LFS}/{dev{/pts,/shm},proc,sys}
But you're creating ${LFS}/dev (presumably for the first time), so I
guess you are then
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 07:51:47PM +, Peter Ennis wrote:
> Is it OK to explicitly create
> dev/pts and dev/shm before mount --bind ?
> This will fix my situation.
No. This will definitely not help, as they will be covered by mount
--bind. You may want to look at the --bind option in `man 8 mo
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:02:51AM +0100, Anthony Wright wrote:
> In LFS 6.1.1 the device /dev/cdrom is created during boot. In the
> current version it is no longer created. It's not a required device, but
> it is fairly useful as it avoids programs having to hunt around the
> block devices try
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 05:51:22PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Alex Merry wrote:
> > Robert was suggesting a change that would allow the sed to be applied to
> > other *FLAGS variables. When you consider the dangers in constructing and
> > running commands you don'
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 05:13:53PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Robert Connolly wrote:
> >
> >> This isn't a bug, but the line:
> >>
> >> sed 's/^XCFLAGS =$/& -fomit-frame-pointer/'
> >>
> >> can be problematic if a user uses this command to modify other variables,
> >> be
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 12:40:54PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> On July 15, 2006 12:26 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Robert Connolly wrote these words on 07/15/06 11:13 CST:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build > sed 's/^XCFLAGS =$/& -fomit-frame-pointer/' tf
> > stuff
> > XCFLAGS = -g -O2
> > more st
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 01:12:17PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
> This is preliminary. I'm still working through the rest of the rules.
> This covers the first 3 sections of the current 25-lfs.rules file.
>
> KERNEL=="capi", NAME="capi20",
> SYMLINK+="isdn/capi20"
>
> K
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:02:53PM +0100, EaStErDoM wrote:
> Chris Staub schrieb:
>
> >I'm sorry, I forgot that the stable book does use 2.6.11. In any case,
> >that's not likely to be the issue, assuming that the headers are in
> >fact correctly installed into /tools/include. It is possible tha
32 matches
Mail list logo
