Robert Daniels wrote:
> I'm really not too sure what to do about the scripting myself. In some
> ways it makes sense to put it with package management, as they both
> relate to automation. As you note, it would also make sense before the
> bootstrap, to teach how to automate that module. A t
On Sunday 02 March 2008 02:26:07 taipan wrote:
>
> Yeah, you're right. In that sense, separate modules on bootstrapping
> & PM would be sequential as you initially proposed. However it still
> leaves the (optional) issue of scripting/automating the
> bootstrap-module unsolved. I'm afraid i have no
Robert Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday 01 March 2008 08:59:13 taipan wrote:
>> Looks about right to my unskilled eye, but i'd say the 'linearity' of
>> modules 1 & 2 would be a bit trickier to implement than it initially
>> appears...
>>
>> If you were to take the 'diy-linux reference-build' as an exa
hi,
> There was an explicit ban from Gerard to not talk about this and you are not
> respecting it then.
Yes, you're right - i saw that too late - sorry for that but I have
no "unsend"-button. I read my mails top-down and answered before reading
Gerards mails.
--
Thomas
--
http://linuxfrom
On Sunday 02 March 2008 00:08:22 Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, 29. Februar 2008 19:45:47 schrieb George Makrydakis:
> > On Friday 29 February 2008 17:26:43 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > ...
> > For all readers: There are many things you do not know. Choose the
> > version of the facts that
Hi,
Am Freitag, 29. Februar 2008 19:45:47 schrieb George Makrydakis:
> On Friday 29 February 2008 17:26:43 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> ...
> For all readers: There are many things you do not know. Choose the version
> of the facts that appeals most to you, you will eventually find out the
> truth on
On Saturday 01 March 2008 08:59:13 taipan wrote:
> Looks about right to my unskilled eye, but i'd say the 'linearity' of
> modules 1 & 2 would be a bit trickier to implement than it initially
> appears...
>
> If you were to take the 'diy-linux reference-build' as an example,
> Greg caters for the o
On Sat, Mar 01, at 02:59 taipan wrote:
> Speaking for myself, i have an almost compulsive need to know _WHY_ i'm
> supposed to do things a certain way, so additional 'pre-reading' would
> be no issue for me, in fact it would be welcomed. But i can envisage
> such an approach driving away the s
taipan wrote:
> If you were to take the 'diy-linux reference-build' as an example, Greg
> caters for the option of package-management during the 'temp-tools
> phase' (or Chapter 5, or module 1, whichever you prefer), which is a
> *must* for any users wishing to take the PM option during Chapter
Robert Daniels wrote:
> I've been thinking about this 'modules' idea, and also the idea about
> the automatically generated personalized book, and I came up with the
> following:
>
> 1) Bootstrapping a toolchain - Pretty much equivalent to Chapter 5.
> 2) Package Management - Choose your packag
On Friday 29 February 2008 03:20:44 Alan Lord wrote:
> Here's the original suggestion I made:
>
> ---
> So perhaps the LFS project becomes some sort of "course" (and I use
> the term loosely). The "modules" of which, could be something like:
>
> * Learning the basics (Command Line, cmmi, security,
I wrote:
> Also there is a technical issue about /usr/bin/nscd being currently
> linked against libssp0 from /tools.
Sorry for the obsolete information. With package versions in the current LFS
and
the next-generation build method, I get:
# ldd /usr/sbin/nscd
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xff
Are we about done with the personal insults and accusations? Please?
That is not a request. I'm not going to pick a side either.
If anybody feels there remains a need to talk in the way that has been
done the last few days, then take it off list. Nobody here needs or
wants to hear it anymore. W
Are we about done with the personal insults and accusations? Please?
That is not a request. I'm not going to pick a side either.
If anybody feels there remains a need to talk in the way that has been
done the last few days, then take it off list. Nobody here needs or
wants to hear it anymore. W
George Makrydakis wrote:
> On Saturday 01 March 2008 00:55:04 David Jensen wrote:
>> If I might suggest: Use Gerard as an arbiter, it is his project.
>>
>
> Glad to hear about this.
>
Don't mention it. At my age, I need reminded, can't say if Gerard does.
---
David Jensen
--
http://linuxfroms
On Saturday 01 March 2008 00:55:04 David Jensen wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > This means that there is always the benefit of the doubt. If you want
> > this settled, you know where and how to find me. If this is a
> > misunderstanding ,it is a long standing one and I propose we resolve this
George Makrydakis wrote:
>
> This means that there is always the benefit of the doubt. If you want this
> settled, you know where and how to find me. If this is a misunderstanding ,it
> is a long standing one and I propose we resolve this now before everything
> else. It would be of mutual bene
On Friday 29 February 2008 23:14:19 Alan Lord wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> ... Lots of stuff about George's crazy email(s).
As if you knew what this is all about. You obviously don't.
> Jeremy,
>
> I really don't know what George is on. I didn't plan to respond to his
> mail at all. I don't
On Friday 29 February 2008 22:26:24 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:45:47PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > You have some issues, sir. You are doing the same thing to everybody
> > else's project you cannot touch. You did the same when you ungraciously
> > backported everyth
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
... Lots of stuff about George's crazy email(s).
Jeremy,
I really don't know what George is on. I didn't plan to respond to his
mail at all. I don't think it deserves any more bandwidth to be frank.
Ignore it.
Let's just move on - or get back - to discussing the way forw
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:45:47PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> You have some issues, sir. You are doing the same thing to everybody else's
> project you cannot touch. You did the same when you ungraciously backported
> everything from cross-lfs and diy in order to have a 64bit build. To the
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:31:28PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would like to see UTF-8 in LFS.
>I thought it was? Or at least, I thought LFS was UTF-8-ready. (I don't
>think we want to enforce UTF-8 on everyone, though.)
Hmm, I need to look. I haven't built a new LFS recently. I just
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:31:28PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would like to see UTF-8 in LFS.
>
> I thought it was? Or at least, I thought LFS was UTF-8-ready. (I don't
> think we want to enforce UTF-8 on everyone, though.)
>
>> I'm not sure I like using XML for
On Friday 29 February 2008 11:44, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:22:24AM -0600, Rich Edelman wrote:
> > While not all package managers keep configure and build as separate steps
> > (in fact, I'm not aware of any that actually do have them as separate
> > steps),
>
> The package-
On Friday 29 February 2008 17:26:43 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 04:20:25PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > I would have some heavy commenting to do on the origin of what you are
> > proposing here but in anycase, time for this will come and you know it.
> > People who know,
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:31:28PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would like to see UTF-8 in LFS.
I thought it was? Or at least, I thought LFS was UTF-8-ready. (I don't
think we want to enforce UTF-8 on everyone, though.)
> I'm not sure I like using XML for building packages. I prefer rea
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:22:24AM -0600, Rich Edelman wrote:
> While not all package managers keep configure and build as separate steps (in
> fact, I'm not aware of any that actually do have them as separate steps),
The package-user method's current scripts do. However, I'm not sure if
that re
On Friday 29 February 2008 10:01, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > I realized that taking such a variable approach as 'choose your own PM'
> > would lead to such issues. The idea I had in mind to solve it would be
> > to make the main spec files nothing more than perhaps ve
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:41AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ---
> > So perhaps the LFS project becomes some sort of "course" (and I use the
> > term loosely). The "modules" of which, could be something like:
> >
> >
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I realized that taking such a variable approach as 'choose your own PM'
> would lead to such issues. The idea I had in mind to solve it would be
> to make the main spec files nothing more than perhaps very simple xml, e.g.:
>
> somepkg
> 1.2.3
> file-for-patching.patch
>
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>
> >> Merging the projects is a good idea, but I think, for the sake of
> >> customization and flexibility, it will still be good to break down LFS
> >> into 'modules' as Al
I agree with what I have been reading. It would be a shame if people lost
interest in LFS because there are few sources available for teaching how to
build a complete system. The more widely disseminated this knowledge is, the
better, even if 99% of Linux users don't care.
I have been using L
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 04:20:25PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> I would have some heavy commenting to do on the origin of what you are
> proposing here but in anycase, time for this will come and you know it.
> People
> who know, know. Those who don't probably did not care enough. Discussio
On Friday 29 February 2008 03:23:21 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Please bear with me... this is a long post, although I tried to keep it
> simple and easy to read.
>
> Gerard invited me to share some of my ideas with him privately about our
> recent discussions on lfs-dev. What follows i
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 7:15 R.Quenett wrote:
" the time to learn everything all at once, especially without an easy
" way of starting over right at the very beginning. Maybe it's not
correction: without going right back to the very beginning
sorry
R
--
Pay your own bills.
--
htt
ng an overall direction for LFS
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 12:28 Benjamin John wrote:
" there, what I want is how to build my own system
As one of the ones "to be educated", and when I'm learning by
breaking and by doing again, and again, and yet again, what I
fantasize
Jeremy,
I like your idea, having customised instructions in PHP for everyone's need
is great.
I've been giving this subject a long thought since the first post, and I
would like to make a suggestion, although I don't particularly know if it
will be useful, but here it is:
What I've thought is
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 12:28 Benjamin John wrote:
" there, what I want is how to build my own system
As one of the ones "to be educated", and when I'm learning by
breaking and by doing again, and again, and yet again, what I
fantasize and dream about, from the learning point of view,
From my novice-perspective, this is a most enjoyable thread to read -
my thanks to everybody who's contributing. It's inspiring a whole host
of idea's (or pipedreams) that are still very incoherent, i'm afraid...
One prospect that i find especially appealing is a 'module' on 'how to
become a d
Alexander E. Patrakov schrieb:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> The main LFS module can be about the final system. Teaching users
>> _concepts_ of the system, locations of key config files, useful shell
>> tricks and tips, information about packages, examples of how to use the
>> packages in a practica
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Merging the projects is a good idea, but I think, for the sake of
>> customization and flexibility, it will still be good to break down LFS
>> into 'modules' as Alan Lord suggested.
>
> I'm having a problem understanding this concept. If one wants
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello All,
~snip~
> Merging the projects is a good idea, but I think, for the sake of
> customization and flexibility, it will still be good to break down LFS
> into 'modules' as Alan Lord suggested. It will all still be a part of
> the same whole and the workload combine
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The two main attractions of LFS are its educational value and the
> flexibility it offers to fully customize every aspect of the system.
> Whatever we do must focus on meeting those two goals.
I agree.
> Merging the projects is a good idea, but I think, for the sake of
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> The option to bootstrap a temporary toolchain is just an example. But it
>> should give you an idea of how we might make LFS a bit modular.
>
> I agree, but maybe some other example modules would make the idea even more
> clear.
Well, another example may be i18n.
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> And here is a problem: the chosen PM affects the whole system, i.e., its
> choice
> (unlike, say, the choice of an MTA) is not a local change. And, as you can
> see,
> RPMs and DEBs use very different buildscripts. E.g., RPM finds the shared
> library requirement
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that we abandon the bootstrapping method. What I'm
> suggesting is that we make the temporary toolchain into its own module.
Been there (in LeafOS), done that. The non-technical problem is that this
module
(when only its end result is used in a form
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nice job bringing it all together. I agree with everything you said
and think that it would be a huge win for everyone if the project
could be reinvented in this way. I'm especially a huge fan of the
"modules" idea: Focus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The reason for this, I think, is because the discussion is taking
> place among LFSers. :) We're all a bunch of control-freaks who like
> to do things our own way.
That's a really good point... ;-)
> but I think, for th
On Thursday 28 February 2008 19:23:21 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Please bear with me... this is a long post, although I tried to keep
> it simple and easy to read.
>
No problem. Such an important and complex topic should have long
discussions. ( Though not too lengthy, or nothing wil
On Thursday February 28 2008 08:23:21 pm Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Please bear with me... this is a long post, although I tried to keep it
> simple and easy to read.
>
> Gerard invited me to share some of my ideas with him privately about our
> recent discussions on lfs-dev. What foll
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Any thoughts? Do you like the above ideas (or some of them)? Does it
> spark any further ideas?
>
I like and especially the individualized book. I still differ on the
package manager, I just think that DESTDIR stinks, but potentially
provides some educational value
51 matches
Mail list logo
