On 6/26/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I'm happy to upgrade the toolchain on the understanding that this
will set a 6.2 release back by at least another 6-8 weeks. It also
means that all of the stabilisation work done by the BLFS team is more
or less negated as they've bee
Matt thinking about his more carefully then trying to explain myself. I
will say, this is a decision that needs to be made by Gerard and not us.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
* Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-26 17:01]:
> Jeremy (Not Huntwork?)
That's probably Jeremy Utley. These days you can find him in
#lfs-support on IRC as J_Man.
--
Miguel Bazdresch
http://thewizardstower.org/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
Jim Gifford wrote:
Bruce, I would rather go with.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php
After a very brief look over that license I can't tell any fundamental
differences between the ECL and CC by-nc-sa license in Bruce's patch.
Would you care to elaborate on *why* you prefer the ECL o
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I propose to send all a message asking for a statement assigning of the
copyright for their contributions to Gerard.
I don't think copyright assignment is necessary, and is actually likely
to hinder progress as it is a legal process which will likely take time
and money to
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
I would really like to get this into 6.2 so
On 6/26/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> The latest glibc and gcc releases are atleast 3 months old (which in
> terms of LFS timeline is a long time). What is the point in releasing
> a book that is obsolete even before it is published? I would vote for
> u
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
The latest glibc and gcc releases are atleast 3 months old (which in
terms of LFS timeline is a long time). What is the point in releasing
a book that is obsolete even before it is published? I would vote for
updating the book to glibc-2.4.x and gcc-4.1.x and then stablize
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
The latest glibc and gcc releases are atleast 3 months old (which in
terms of LFS timeline is a long time). What is the point in releasing
a book that is obsolete even before it is published? I would vote for
updating the book to glibc-2.4.x and gcc-4.1.x and then stablize
The latest glibc and gcc releases are atleast 3 months old (which in
terms of LFS timeline is a long time). What is the point in releasing
a book that is obsolete even before it is published? I would vote for
updating the book to glibc-2.4.x and gcc-4.1.x and then stablize that
before releasing th
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
>>> show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
>>> current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
>>
>> I would r
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Yep, I think #1765 (update LFS license) can be retargetted as it's not a
> show-stopper and needs to be done properly so will take time. The
> current license has served us well enough so far, I think.
I would really like to get this into 6.2 so the BLFS and LFS books us
Dan Nicholson wrote:
* Update test logs and failure info for toolchain: glibc, gcc, binutils
I can provide logs for PIII as Archaic asked a couple weeks ago. I'll
probably bootstrap a system using jhalfs for testing in the next week
or so.
Thanks, I think this is ticket #1659 or at least very
On 6/20/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 06/20/06 13:31 CST:
> * Linux-2.6.17 or stick with 2.6.16 series?
>
> * Package updates within same series (udev, e2fsprogs, shadow, bison?)
If we keep mentioning these types of issues, we will *never* get
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 06/20/06 13:31 CST:
> * Linux-2.6.17 or stick with 2.6.16 series?
>
> * Package updates within same series (udev, e2fsprogs, shadow, bison?)
If we keep mentioning these types of issues, we will *never* get a
book out. Package updates (security issue with the ke
On 6/19/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, if anyone is aware of any issues that have been reported over the
last couple of months and are still outstanding could you please get
them into Trac (where, arguably, they should have gone as well
as/instead of to the list) if they are
17 matches
Mail list logo
