On 12/1/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> > As a follow up to this comment, beagle also uses inotify. I built it
> > with l-l-h-2.6.12.0, and it works fine now that I've upgraded my
> > kernel to 2.6.14. How? beagle (appropriately) includes inotify.h in
>
On 11/30/05, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
> inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
>
Once last thing: apparently the not finding is an
issue for dovecot. Read here:
http://www.dovecot.org/list/d
Dan Nicholson wrote:
As a follow up to this comment, beagle also uses inotify. I built it
with l-l-h-2.6.12.0, and it works fine now that I've upgraded my
kernel to 2.6.14. How? beagle (appropriately) includes inotify.h in
it's source tree.
Just as a point of interest, what happens if one c
On 12/1/05, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/1/05, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would like it to use inotify, but it doesn't because the headers are
> > too old. I never really understood why most (all?) distributors choose
> > to use kernel headers that doesn't
On 12/1/05, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like it to use inotify, but it doesn't because the headers are
> too old. I never really understood why most (all?) distributors choose
> to use kernel headers that doesn't match the running kernel.
It's up to the userspace package y
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
Matt Darcy wrote:
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
And what is your experience with this ?
Do you find that inotify works/is picked up by dovecot ? or do
Matt Darcy wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
> > inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
> >
>
> And what is your experience with this ?
>
> Do you find that inotify works/is picked up by dovecot ? or do you
> f
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello guys,
I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and late
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> > But is there a problem if I use
> > the latest kernel version ?
> >
> > Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
> > a
On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello guys,
>
> I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> But is there a problem if I use
> the latest kernel version ?
>
> Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
> and latest kernel version differs?
It's perfectly fine as far as I know. Ev
Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and latest kernel version differs?
No, there aren't any problems that *I* know of, and a recent discussion
on this list suggests that others haven't had any problems ei
Hello guys,
I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
But is there a problem if I use
the latest kernel version ?
Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
and latest kernel version differs?
regards Bernd
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa
12 matches
Mail list logo
