On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:37:24AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I agree totally that trying to introduce multilib into LFS would be
> very difficult for us right now. I wasn't trying to say we should. In
> fact, I probably shouldn't have commented to the thread at all. But I
> wasn't sure if the
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/12/08 09:28 CST:
> I suppose, at some point, we might want to be able to do multilib. But,
> at least when I started the branch, it was felt that we'd be better off
> just approaching a 64-bit only build. Whenever we do feel like adding
> multilib, build not
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:06:59AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Marc McLaughlin (LUSYN) wrote these words on 05/12/08 06:39 CST:
> > Also, is anyone interested in my build notes? I've noted the changes to
> > the 6.3 build to get a working x86-64 build.
>
> I also have the changes required to b
Marc McLaughlin (LUSYN) wrote:
> Out of interest, which bootloaders mentioned by Jeremy for LFS 7.0 will
> work with x86-64? I only managed to get my x86-64 LFS build booting
> with EXTLINUX.
LILO, Grub2.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: htt
Marc McLaughlin (LUSYN) wrote these words on 05/12/08 06:39 CST:
> Out of interest, which bootloaders mentioned by Jeremy for LFS 7.0 will
> work with x86-64? I only managed to get my x86-64 LFS build booting
> with EXTLINUX.
I really don't have a good answer to your question, as I'm guessing
yo
Hi all,
Out of interest, which bootloaders mentioned by Jeremy for LFS 7.0 will
work with x86-64? I only managed to get my x86-64 LFS build booting
with EXTLINUX.
Also, is anyone interested in my build notes? I've noted the changes to
the 6.3 build to get a working x86-64 build.
Rgds,
Marc
L
On May 9, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I haven't piped in on this at all, but I'd just like to say that I
really, really want to be pro-grub2. I periodically peruse the
grub-devel archives hoping to see that a 2.0 release is imminent. I
find it ridiculous that there's no currently sup
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that the prevailing attitude here is rather anti GRUB2. Mostly
> > because development on it seems to focus on items perceived
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think that the prevailing attitude here is rather anti GRUB2. Mostly
> because development on it seems to focus on items perceived as useless
> and bloat for a boot loader.
I haven't piped in on this at all, but I'd j
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> you know .. I really like the atmosphere in the LFS project.
> Such a nice bunch of people.
Oh, we've had our moments. You don't even have to go very far back in
the archives to read some. :(
But I think, on the whole, we all prefer a nicer, friendlier atmosphere,
and we
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Sorry to drop in. I just wanted you to know that I was still out here
> > working on this little embedded PPC device and that I was getting to
> > the boot loader issue .. eventually.
>
> Don't
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Sorry to drop in. I just wanted you to know that I was still out here
> working on this little embedded PPC device and that I was getting to
> the boot loader issue .. eventually.
Don't apologize. :) Dropping in is welcome.
> Just FYI.
Thanks for the reminder, Dennis. I'll
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > In any case, I don't see a reason that there won't be a LFS 6.4 or 7.0
> release
> > sometime this summer.
>
> At the current rate, if we do LFS 7.0 this summer it would have to be
> sans packa
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> To be current, I'd also like to see the Udev blocker sorted out before
>> we release 7.0. See: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2057
>
> Since I see a mention of udev:
>
> Over t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> To be current, I'd also like to see the Udev blocker sorted out before
> we release 7.0. See: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2057
Since I see a mention of udev:
Over the past couple weeks, I've started to l
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Some of the users for which 8-bit encodings work might still prefer
> UTF-8 for compatibility with RedHat (at the cost of incompatibility with
> the rest of the world). Also UTF-8 support is a requirement for LSB
> certification.
Ubuntu 5.04 also uses pt_BR.UTF-8 on
TheOldFellow wrote:
OK, we have some i18n 8-bit users, but multibyte? I see some names than
might be Chinese on the list occasionally.
Of course we have them, even among the editors! Namely, Matthew Burgess
(he tries to use en_GB.UTF-8):
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lf
TheOldFellow wrote:
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I also wanted to get some internationalisation work sorted out for LFS,
so where are the non-8bit-language (indeed, apart from Manuel and Alex,
where are the non-ASCII) volunteers to test this? It'
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> OK, we have some i18n 8-bit users, but multibyte? I see some names than
> might be Chinese on the list occasionally.
>
I imagine some of our german-speaking users might prefer to use utf. I
often see posts (not necessarily on lfs lists) where there a
El Martes, 26 de Julio de 2005 04:16, Gerard Beekmans escribió:
> Clutter will be a concern. The TOC has to be clean and easy to navigate.
> Like I said above, a chapter re-organization may be required to maintain
> a logically flowing TOC where you don't get lost.
Actually at this momment we a
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Additionally, of course, cross-lfs is to be
> > seriously considered at this point. I've not looked at Jim, Ryan,
>
> Opinions seem divided on this one. Should cross-lfs become part of the
> mainstream book? In other words,
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>>I also wanted to get some internationalisation work sorted out for LFS,
>>
>>so where are the non-8bit-language (indeed, apart from Manuel and Alex,
>>where are the non-ASCII) volunteers to test this? It's all very we
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
...
mainstream book? In other words, will every LFS'er be building according
to the cross-lfs (toolchain) methodology even if they don't require it?
...
My prediction is that "everybody" using i?86 in the near future will
be wanting x86_64 or emt64 (right name?) as all n
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> [...]
> This way I believe we'll have the best of both world.
>
Or we can make separate book volumes. Is that possible with Docbook?
--
Anderson Lizardo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
http://
TheOldFellow wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>I also wanted to get some internationalisation work sorted out for LFS,
>>as I have to admit to being somewhat embarassed seeing all the
>>disclaimers dotted around the book stating that things don't work right
>>in multibyte locales. However, it look
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Additionally, of course, cross-lfs is to be
seriously considered at this point. I've not looked at Jim, Ryan,
Opinions seem divided on this one. Should cross-lfs become part of the
mainstream book? In other words, will every LFS'er be building according
to the cross-l
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
though I would like to have one point clarified, please. I've heard it
said before that major version numbers in LFS were supposed to represent
In the past the LFS major version number was increased when a major
package in LFS had a major release. For instance, going fr
On Monday 25 July 2005 18:14, Ken Moffat wrote:
[...]
> Personally, I bleed on 2.6.12 (my athlon64's ability to power off
> seems to have been broken by the acpi changes). But, most of the
> important bug fixes in 2.6.12 should be in 2.6.11.12, no ?
I am running 2.6.12 in a couple of PCs with no
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, GN wrote:
> On Monday 25 July 2005 16:40, Ken Moffat wrote:
> [...]
> > > kernel 2.6.12 would be nice.
> >
> > Given timescales, I imagine 2.6.13 will be out. But seriously,
> > what do you see in 2.6.12 that isn't there in 2.6.11 ?
> Mostly bug fixes. 2.6.12 is stable now,
GN wrote:
Incorporate Wifi. I know this can be tricky, but one can only
wish.
[...]
Well, if that's not BLFS, I don't know what is ;)
Almost all notebooks come with Wifi nowadays. I see it as part of the
core in any distribution. Again, IMHO..
SeattleGaucho
My laptop has WiFi, and I p
On Monday 25 July 2005 16:40, Ken Moffat wrote:
[...]
> > kernel 2.6.12 would be nice.
>
> Given timescales, I imagine 2.6.13 will be out. But seriously,
> what do you see in 2.6.12 that isn't there in 2.6.11 ?
Mostly bug fixes. 2.6.12 is stable now, 2.6.13 might be 'bleeding
edge'. IMHO.
> > >
On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, GN wrote:
On Monday 25 July 2005 12:36, Matthew Burgess wrote:
A number of people have emailed me privately, and its also come up
on the list recently, so here's my thoughts on what could/should be
going on in LFS land. Ye
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, GN wrote:
> On Monday 25 July 2005 12:36, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > A number of people have emailed me privately, and its also come up
> > on the list recently, so here's my thoughts on what could/should be
> > going on in LFS land. Yes, I know it's taken me far too long to
On Monday 25 July 2005 12:36, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> A number of people have emailed me privately, and its also come up
> on the list recently, so here's my thoughts on what could/should be
> going on in LFS land. Yes, I know it's taken me far too long to
> ditch my Release Manager hat and don m
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:10:31PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> so, does releasing a LFS book with gcc4, a new binutils, and (hopefully
> by that time a new glibc) not suggest a new major version number?
I'm not a big fan of such hard and fast rules. In this situation I would
ask, "What is
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> LFS-7.0:
>
> Now, here's the biggy. The jury's still out on this one :) I'd like to
> see GCC-4.x in this one, but that's dependent on the stability of said
> compiler with the rest of the toolchain (Glibc in particular) and its
> effect on BLFS packages.
+1 on GCC 4.x
Archaic wrote:
And there is nothing requiring an imminent release of cross-lfs, either.
The idea of getting gcc-4 into trunk post 6.2 sounds good. What really
sounds good after that is an i18n cleanup in 6.4 and a merge to
cross-lfs when it is done. That said, there is also no technical reason
we
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> LFS-6.2:
>
> This will just be an incremental release, further stabilising our
> already proven PLFS-based build method. GCC-3.4.x combined with
> Glibc-2.3.5 seems pretty robust, and adding binutils-2.16.1 to the mix
> should further solidify that.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:15:45PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> That said, there's nothing stopping us from releasing a 7.0 that happens
> to contain cross build techniques and gcc-4, it's just it'll no doubt
> take us much longer to reach a releasable state.
And there is nothing requiring
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
My only suggestion here is to not combine cross build techniques and
gcc-4. IMO it would be better to tackle these large changes one at a
time. Perhaps a LFS 6.3 with gcc-4 would be appropriate.
Right, it all depends of course on whether folks want things to be
time-drive
On 7/25/05, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> > Now, here's the biggy. The jury's still out on this one :) I'd like to
> > see GCC-4.x in this one, but that's dependent on the stability of said
> > compiler with the rest of the toolchain (Glibc in particular) an
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Now, here's the biggy. The jury's still out on this one :) I'd like to
> see GCC-4.x in this one, but that's dependent on the stability of said
> compiler with the rest of the toolchain (Glibc in particular) and its
> effect on BLFS packages. Additionally, of course, cr
Matthew Burgess wrote:
LFS-6.2:
Sounds good.
LFS-7.0:
So we've got 3 major new features we'd like to cram into LFS :) I do
think they each deserve a little attention and consideration, though I
don't think we should try to put them into trunk all at once (not that I
really believe you'd
43 matches
Mail list logo
