Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As I followed this list a couple of month now,
> I would like to make a proposal for the LFS branch.
> 1) BSFS - Bootstrapping From Scratch sub-branch
> 2) HPFS - Hotplugging From Scratch sub-branch
> 3) LLHFS - Linux Libc Header From Scratch sub-branch
I'll
Dan Winkler wrote:
> Hello All I have a quick question.
>
> I have completed LFS 6.1 and would like to get Xorg installed
This question is best asked to blfs-dev or blfs-support. The lfs-dev
list is for development of the base LFS book only.
--
Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 29
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> And please trim your quotes! Nearly ~40 lines of quoted email to add a
> 6-word sentence is ridiculous.
My apologies to the list. I had just sent off a bunch of emails rapid
fire and the previous one in this thread being the last one, I guess I
wasn't paying too close at
Andrejs Spunitis wrote:
> /**/For automation LFS, I've writtten the script
> accordnig to instruction from chapter 5 that:
> http://www.dzti.edu.lv/isp-serv/a7/lfs-toolkit.txt
>
> For building I use LiveCD:
> http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/lfs-livecd/lfslivecd-x86-6.2-pre3.iso
>
> I've mounted /dev/
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
And to further clarify, an LFS machine as it currently is does *not*
automatically use UTF-8. The changes to the LFS book are so that the
LFS system *can* use UTF-8 properly if a user requires it. IMO, this is
I'd like some clarification on one point then. IIRC, I read
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 01/09/06 12:19 CST:
* Mention that folks can choose gdbm instead of berkeley db with a
pointer to BLFS's gdbm page.
The arpd daemon is already back in LFS. Dumping BDB means that the
IPRoute package installation would break.
Add
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I get tired of people saying I'm keeping everything secret of what I'm
> doing. I brought what I found to the masses now that it works properly,
> and now I'm getting harassed for it. Do I really deserve this treatment,
> I don't think so. I'm tired of this crap, especially
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
>>> just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
>>> just a couple of weeks with these new
Wade Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ readelf -l a.out | grep ': /tools'
> [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
> have been following devel book verbatim, except using --disable-multilib
> for 1st & 2nd pass gcc compiles
>
> host system is:
>
Tony Morgan wrote:
As y'all know, I'm new here... well, mostly new.
Well then allow me to welcome you to the community.
Was wondering if someone could fill me in on this...
What's the deal with cross-lfs? Ok, I know it's a book (or, really, a
set of books) for people compiling LFS on a system othe
TheOldFellow wrote:
A bit of a disclaimer before I try to pick apart this script a little.
All internal politics discussions aside, I greatly respect Greg's
technical prowess, and my trying to make changes to a script by some one
who knows a lot more than me will probably break things. That sai
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Joel Miller wrote:
We wouldn't have done exercises with them if it wasn't acceptable to
use them.
So are you telling me that all those Visual Basic exercises I did means
it's actually acceptable to use in the real world? :)
toucher
--
Registered LFS User
Andrew Benton wrote:
I agree, but people tell me it's wrong to start sentences with "however"
and "but" because they're linking words
It's a perfectly legal sentence. In school, we used to call sentences
that started like this "spoilers." I don't remember school a lot, but I
do remember working
Matthias Berndt wrote:
Greetings!
Wouldn't it make sense to change the SheBang in the bootscripts from
'#!/bin/sh' to '#!/bin/bash' because the scripts are not bourne shell
compatible?
I'm asking because I changed /bin/sh from /bin/bash to /bin/zsh and made
a disaster.
Please tell us the kind of er
Jim Gifford wrote:
There was also to be a hold on udev util that was worked out also.
Frankly, that's silly. There's no need to put a hold on upgrading udev
until the new /etc/group is pushed out. Package upgrades should keep
pressing forward. When the time comes that the new groups file is added
Randy McMurchy wrote:
It's my opinion that the current SVN (20050303) is rock solid and
worthy of a release. I have a couple systems running it, without
problems or issues that I've seen. Additionally, Anduin is running
on a very similar platform (just a few packages are not up to the
current revs
Thomas Trepl wrote:
I personally build my boot-cd with something like -march=i686 -mtune=i686
just FYI, -march implies -mtune. using both is redundant.
--
Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 298182
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch
17 matches
Mail list logo
