Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Trepl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just a note, current svn-version referres to kbd-2.0.1-backspace-1.patch but
>> only the 2.0.0 version is on the server.
>
> Thanks for the report. I forgot to commit that patch, but it turns out
> that Igor
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just a note, current svn-version referres to kbd-2.0.1-backspace-1.patch but
> only the 2.0.0 version is on the server.
Thanks for the report. I forgot to commit that patch, but it turns out
that Igor committed it on my behalf bac
On 2013-09-18 18:50, Igor Živković wrote:
> On 2013-09-18 18:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/tools/lib/pkgconfig ./configure --prefix=/usr
>>> --disable-vlock
>>
>> ??? That's already in the book at SVN-20130915.
>
> Yes, indeed, it is. Somehow jhal
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 11:36 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >
> > Darn! I hit that, changed it locally but somehow lost it prior to the
> > commit. I'll fix up tonight. In the meantime, if you haven't already
> > done so, you can use:
> >
> > PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/tools/lib/pkgco
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Igor Živković wrote:
>> On 2013-09-18 18:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/tools/lib/pkgconfig ./configure --prefix=/usr
--disable-vlock
>>>
>>> ??? That's already in the book at SVN-20130915.
>>
>> Yes, indeed, it is. Someho
On 2013-09-18 18:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>
>> PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/tools/lib/pkgconfig ./configure --prefix=/usr
>> --disable-vlock
>
> ??? That's already in the book at SVN-20130915.
Yes, indeed, it is. Somehow jhalfs didn't pick it up. By the way, the
latest generate
Igor Živković wrote:
> On 2013-09-18 18:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/tools/lib/pkgconfig ./configure --prefix=/usr
>>> --disable-vlock
>>
>> ??? That's already in the book at SVN-20130915.
>
> Yes, indeed, it is. Somehow jhalfs didn't pick it up. By
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:00:27 +0200, Igor Živković
> wrote:
>
>> checking for CHECK... no
>> configure: error: Package requirements (check >= 0.9.4) were not met:
>>
>> No package 'check' found
>>
>> Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
>> ins
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:00:27 +0200, Igor Živković
wrote:
> checking for CHECK... no
> configure: error: Package requirements (check >= 0.9.4) were not met:
>
> No package 'check' found
>
> Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
> installed software in a non-standard
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 05:34:32PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I intend to make 7.3 from svn on Friday, but I can delay that if we
>> think we need to. I do hesitate to put things off because new packages
>> just keep on turning up. On average, a new package in LFS is
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 05:34:32PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Yes, I intend to make 7.3 from svn on Friday, but I can delay that if we
> think we need to. I do hesitate to put things off because new packages
> just keep on turning up. On average, a new package in LFS is released
> once eve
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:25:55PM +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 22:47 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > So perhaps we should just disable them again ? I've given up
> > caring wither way, I'd just like the book to be consistent in what
> > is documented ;-)
>
> Like you, I'm
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 04:56:10PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> Since I don't use normally kbd at all, my experiences are limited. I
>> almost never use the 'console' except via ssh and fonts are then
>> controlled by the remote terminal program.
>>
>> I'll defer to your jud
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 22:47 +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> So perhaps we should just disable them again ? I've given up
> caring wither way, I'd just like the book to be consistent in what
> is documented ;-)
Like you, I'm not particularly fussed either way. As it's useless
without a BLFS package
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 04:56:10PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Since I don't use normally kbd at all, my experiences are limited. I
> almost never use the 'console' except via ssh and fonts are then
> controlled by the remote terminal program.
>
> I'll defer to your judgement. Just give me
Ken Moffat wrote:
> In LFS-7.2 we removed resizecons because at that time it only
> installed on "i386" and it was generally useless for LFS users. My
> explanation said:
>
> Remove the redundant resizecons program (32-bit x86 only, needs the
> defunct svgalib, which predates linux-2.6 and is in
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:22:11PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> In LFS-7.2 we removed resizecons because at that time it only
> installed on "i386" and it was generally useless for LFS users. My
> explanation said:
>
> Remove the redundant resizecons program (32-bit x86 only, needs the
> defunct s
xinglp wrote:
> May be need a symbolic link
OK, done.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
- Mail original -
> De: "Ken Moffat"
> À: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Juin 2012 01:27:34
> Objet: Re: [lfs-dev] kbd resizecons was still build on 32-bit x86
>
>
> 2. How did you decide on that date and time ? In a just un
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> 2. How did you decide on that date and time ?
>
> Um. Yeah. I looked at what "ls -l" with no special configuration was
> telling me, and picked a time that was comfortably earlier than the
> mtime on aclocal.m4.
>
> This is probably completely unusabl
On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It's a neat exercise to get it as small as possible. Not very critical
> though when RAM is $4/G, disk is $0.50/G, and even SSDs are down to $1/G.
Again, it's not just about disk space or available RAM. It's about (as
one example) the time it tak
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2. How did you decide on that date and time ?
Um. Yeah. I looked at what "ls -l" with no special configuration was
telling me, and picked a time that was comfortably earlier than the
mtime on aclocal.m4.
This is probably completely unusable for people in other timezones; I
d
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 6/6/12 9:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> (Major tangent now) My main motive for wanting to keep a very
>>> lightweight base system isn't so much size on disk as image size (a
>>> complete base system image). This is a somewhat important conside
On 6/6/12 9:21 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> (Major tangent now) My main motive for wanting to keep a very
>> lightweight base system isn't so much size on disk as image size (a
>> complete base system image). This is a somewhat important consideration
>> if you want to be ea
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> (Major tangent now) My main motive for wanting to keep a very
> lightweight base system isn't so much size on disk as image size (a
> complete base system image). This is a somewhat important consideration
> if you want to be easily transferring / duplicating / manipula
On 6/6/12 7:27 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 1. It may encourage the people who are resurrecting the "drop
> autotools from LFS" suggestion :)
Too late, I'm already encouraged! :P
Seriously though, I really didn't intend to bring up that discussion
again. I only wanted to get rid of popt. :) But that
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:41:39PM -0700, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> That doesn't explain why it gets run in this particular case though.
> We're editing configure, which should set its mtime to "right now",
> which should be later than configure.ac. Unless configure.ac is
> shipping with an mtime
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:51:23PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
>> Why is sedding configure not enough? I don't doubt it isn't, but
>> can't think why. My understanding is that configure.ac is used as
>> input to generate configure. Therefore, whatever Makefile rules
>> are in
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:51:23PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 17:35 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:26:34PM +0800, xinglp wrote:
> > > I got it. We need to sed configure.ac instead of configure.
> > > configure was regenerated after ./configure
>
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 17:35 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:26:34PM +0800, xinglp wrote:
> > I got it. We need to sed configure.ac instead of configure.
> > configure was regenerated after ./configure
>
> Doh! Sometimes I'm a slow learner
You and me both, evidentally..
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:26:34PM +0800, xinglp wrote:
> I got it. We need to sed configure.ac instead of configure.
> configure was regenerated after ./configure
Doh! Sometimes I'm a slow learner : Bryan explained this a little
while ago. In this case, sedding configure.ac and then manual
2012/6/5 Ken Moffat :
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:45:54PM +0800, xinglp wrote:
>> I just finished the SVN-20120603 lfs build. The resizecons was still
>> there, only the manpage removed.
>
> I stopped building 32-bit x86 a long time ago, so I don't have a
> build environment to prove the change w
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:45:54PM +0800, xinglp wrote:
> I just finished the SVN-20120603 lfs build. The resizecons was still
> there, only the manpage removed.
I stopped building 32-bit x86 a long time ago, so I don't have a
build environment to prove the change works. But, a quick test
shows
On May 18, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/18/12 3:36 PM, Qrux wrote:
>> I'll let you and Bruce continue on about experimentation, etc. I would
>> ordinarily chime in (and suggest probably more flame-worthy stuff like
>> moving to git would foster more experimentation, because th
On 5/18/12 3:36 PM, Qrux wrote:
> I'll let you and Bruce continue on about experimentation, etc. I would
> ordinarily chime in (and suggest probably more flame-worthy stuff like
> moving to git would foster more experimentation, because the effort of
> merging would be front-loaded on forkers--not
On May 18, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 5/18/12 5:22 AM, Qrux wrote:
>> But, let's not make it a crime to clarify. If Ken would rather assert
>> that I'm not "new" to the community, then to the extent that his
>> assertion is valid I'd say that I see a lot of GroupThink(TM) in L
On 5/18/12 12:34 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I agree with all these points, but being stable and
> re-thinking/experimenting are not mutually exclusive. Again, it's a
> matter of process and organization. But the typical behavior I've seen
> is to nay-say new ideas because it does not fit in with
On 5/18/12 11:37 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy, I think you overstate the issues. To me, LFS is a leading edge
> system,
> but not a bleeding edge system. On one hand we try to keep up to date with
> the
> current package releases, but we try to stay away from intermediate versions
> that lie
On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:28:11 +0100
Qrux wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > Since you are using Applemail, I think the problem is that it is using \r
> > for
> > newlines instead of \n. I see your mail wrapped, but when replying, it
> > doesn't
> > wrap automat
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The world is not a static place, especially the world of computing. Just
> because we've done something a certain way for a long time and it
> brought us successfully to this point doesn't mean that there is not now
> a compelling reason to do it differently. Perhaps we
On 5/18/12 5:22 AM, Qrux wrote:
> But, let's not make it a crime to clarify. If Ken would rather assert
> that I'm not "new" to the community, then to the extent that his
> assertion is valid I'd say that I see a lot of GroupThink(TM) in LFS.
> Most is probably good. But there are often ruffled f
Qrux wrote:
> @Markku...I meant no offense. I've always just assumed that devs
> work on the console in English, with a US keyboard layout. A lot of
> devs have to do that, since i18n isn't always a top prio for bleeding
> edge stuff (e.g., Xen). I just figured devs would choose the path of
> few
On May 17, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Since you are using Applemail, I think the problem is that it is using \r for
> newlines instead of \n. I see your mail wrapped, but when replying, it
> doesn't
> wrap automatically. It's easy enough fo rme to to edit->rewrap though.
That's
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:18:30PM -0700, Qrux wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:37:24PM -0700, Qrux wrote:
> >>
> >> Console fonts (and asking people to build FB support in kernels) seem like
> >> a waste of effort when most people probably spend 99% of their time SSH'ed
> >> in to th
Qrux wrote:
> On May 17, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:37:24PM -0700, Qrux wrote:
>>> Console fonts (and asking people to build FB support in kernels) seem
>>> like a waste of effort when most people probably spend 99% of their time
>>> SSH'ed in to their LFS
45 matches
Mail list logo
