> http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1715
>
> I think LFS could take a few pointers from this.
Having decent infrastructure is important, but truthfully, I favour the
BSD development model over that of Linux. The BSDs' code quality is
vastly superior, and the single main reason why is becau
>> What I find really sad is this project is about two years older then
>> Gentoo and Arch Linux, but those projects have much better
>> documentation and a lot more people involved in the development and a
>> lot more users and a lot more activity on their communications
>> channels: forums, maili
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:36 -0500
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find
> that we have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get
> to compliance. The discussion below is only a start. There may be
> more needed after I get their
> Is this an alternative to alfs or something more different [sorry about
> the English there - yeuckkk!] than that?
>
> Is it suitable for "non" LFS Developers?
Hi Alan,
I put together something a bit back to automate installation of other
applications. You'd need to write profiles for it for LF
> As a result, this morning I see a malicious message in my Inbox from one
> of the team members here. It suggested that I created this notion of
> leaving LFS as a ruse to gain more recognition and ended with the
> comment that I 'need help'.
Jeremy,
I will admit that sort of thing was my main re
Goodybye, Jeremy,
I learnt some things from you, and although I probably didn't get to know
you all that well, I liked talking to you in #lfs-support when I did.
Seeing as you were also wearing as many hats as you were, I'm sure this will
also be a great loss to the project.
I understand the need f
> And why not? If some pieces were not required, then why did you build
> them in the first place?
I only really consider package management important I will admit from the
context of multi-part software suites...like KDE as one example. In that
scenario, the entire system has QT as a dependenc
> alnix /usr/pkgsrc/x11/xorg-server $ bmake clean clean-depends
> Take care use bmake instead of make (bmake is NetBSD make).
I also however had a lot of problems with mk.conf. The structure of pkgsrc
IMHO is a mess...modularity gone mad. There are random includes out to files
which at times are
> sha1sum is included in coreutils and is standard on LFS.
It is? Excuse me for a minute while I go and wipe the egg off my face. ;-)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Both shasum and the library it needs, mhash, are available from here if anyone
is interested.
http://www.netsw.org/crypto/hash/
The below address is the sourceforge download page for mhash as well.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4286
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/
> Another alternative to using md5sums to check the integity of a system
> is to use sha1sums in addition to md5sums. It is not computationally
> feasable to produce two files that have the same md5sum *and* sha1sum.
That sounds like a good idea.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
> In what context? For hashing our own tarballs? Or do you mean not
Yes...hashing our own tarballs. I hadn't thought of it, but it makes sense
that we'd need to keep it for backward compatibility.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq
According to this:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5 and a number of articles
I've seen on Slashdot, MD5 is apparently no longer entirely secure...there's a
story on /. at the moment actually about Microsoft dropping MD5 for use in
Vista.
Should we possibly start considering something else? I kno
> Which is ... odd, because IIRC, ash and sh don't *have* a "source"
> builtin. [1] All they have is ".", but if that doesn't work in zsh,
> we'll be forced to remove support for one or the other shell.
AFAIK, the problem there is only related to zsh's /bin/sh compatibility
mode...Zsh when called
> Before you send patches, they need to work on ash as well, which IIRC,
> is the closest representation of the original bourne shell.
Thanks. I will admit that my current fix is rather a blunt instrument, in the
sense that it simply checks to see if the /bin/sh symlink points to bash, and
if it
was as well. What
I wanted to ask though is, when I've got the patches working, where do I
submit them to...here, or the patches list?
Thanks in advance,
Petrus
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
16 matches
Mail list logo
