On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:43:28PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:02:32PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > I've applied the following patch to my glibc:
> >
> > --- glibc-2.8-20080929/version.h.orig 2008-11-05 03:42:01.0
> > +
> > +++ glibc-2.8-20080929/
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:02:32PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> I've applied the following patch to my glibc:
>
> --- glibc-2.8-20080929/version.h.orig 2008-11-05 03:42:01.0 +
> +++ glibc-2.8-20080929/version.h 2008-11-05 03:42:22.0 +
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> /* This fil
On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:44 AM, TheOldFellow wrote:
Following this logic, we should document:
#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS-svn20081101-built-by-John-Doe"
since we can't control how it was really built. It's for this reason,
lack of control of the build options, that we MUST not call LFS a
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:08:07 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've gone a long time saying that we aren't a distro. But in a sense we
> are. The book is _very_ specific as to its instructions. If you follow
> it you have an LFS system. (We even have our own bootscripts!). If y
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> We've gone a long time saying that we aren't a distro. But in a sense we
> are.
I've given up on that argument. We are not a 'standard' distro, but
none the less, whether we like it or not, we are considered a distro by
everyone else out there. Ever hear of distrowa
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Randy here, in that as we don't modify the
> upstream sources at all, there's no need to 'LFS' in the version string.
> That, to me, suggests that there's something LFS specific about the sources.
> I'd think it would suggest the same to upst
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:50:05 -0600, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> #define RELEASE "stable"
>>> -#define VERSION "2.8"
>>> +#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS"
>>> [snip]
>>> Is there any interest in doing something like this ?
>>
>> I li
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>> #define RELEASE "stable"
>> -#define VERSION "2.8"
>> +#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS"
>> [snip]
>> Is there any interest in doing something like this ?
>
> I like it except the -LFS. As we don't modify it one bit, why
> add the LFS? It is a sto
Ken Moffat wrote:
> #define RELEASE "stable"
> -#define VERSION "2.8"
> +#define VERSION "2.8-20080929-LFS"
> [snip]
> Is there any interest in doing something like this ?
I like it except the -LFS. As we don't modify it one bit, why
add the LFS? It is a stock weekly tarball unmodified. I don't
For a long time, distros have patched glibc to show the distro's
details when you run /lib/libc.so.6 - this is typically encountered
when people report a bug to the kernel list and run scripts/ver_linux
from the kernel tree.
Now that glibc no longer has official releases, we are just using a
wee
10 matches
Mail list logo
