El Jueves, 4 de Mayo de 2006 23:29, Jim Gifford escribió:
> The biggest problem I've had about the md5sums in ALFS is that they are
> ones we have created. We shouldn't be recreating them, but using the
> author's version. I know we have repackages items so they are .bz2, but
> that's not keeping a
The biggest problem I've had about the md5sums in ALFS is that they are
ones we have created. We shouldn't be recreating them, but using the
author's version. I know we have repackages items so they are .bz2, but
that's not keeping a clean chain. That's my objection. If we are not
going to prov
El Jueves, 4 de Mayo de 2006 02:42, Archaic escribió:
> jhalfs was discussed in dozens of threads a long time ago. What you are
> arguing against is a method to test the book directly from it's XML.
And that was one of the goals listed in the specifications when the work on
the newxml format was
Archaic wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:36:53PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
>>>
>> I can understand that, but we should just provide a link to the sources
>> md5 instead of creating our own. It helps prevent any contamination of
>> the file by us.
>
> Not every package has an md5 file. None
to notify them on what's
going on. I've been tied up with CLFS and work lately, and as I've
stated in email to Randy, if someone notified me via an email or IRC
that's when I responded.
You know how it is when your busy.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:36:53PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
> >
> I can understand that, but we should just provide a link to the sources
> md5 instead of creating our own. It helps prevent any contamination of
> the file by us.
Not every package has an md5 file. None of our patches do, eithe
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/03/06 20:36 CST:
I've never seen a ticket assigned to me to answer questions. After all
that's why we have the ticket system in place.
You mean you've been monitoring the lists and because nobody assigned
you a ticket, you have
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/03/06 20:36 CST:
> I've never seen a ticket assigned to me to answer questions. After all
> that's why we have the ticket system in place.
You mean you've been monitoring the lists and because nobody assigned
you a ticket, you haven't contributed to any thread
Jim Gifford wrote:
Perhaps you should visit more often. ;) There have been a few udev rules
threads that I'd appreciate your comments on, too.
I've never seen a ticket assigned to me to answer questions. After all
that's why we have the ticket system in place.
I think perhaps we have diffe
are for convenience.
I can understand that, but we should just provide a link to the sources
md5 instead of creating our own. It helps prevent any contamination of
the file by us.
If I'm missing the point of what's going on, somebody give me a clue. I
know I haven't done a lo
checked it against the upstream
checksum file (if it exists). But many upstream packages don't have
md5's. For that reason alone, I think the book should have them. The
rest are for convenience.
> If I'm missing the point of what's going on, somebody give me a clue. I
&
Jim Gifford wrote:
I see to many conflicts of interest. I see a lot of ALFS stuff getting
merged into the LFS book, with no real discussion.
What do you mean "a lot of ALFS stuff"? You've commented on one idea
today, the md5sums, that is ALFS-oriented. What else are you referring to?
--
JH
-
t I'm accused of all the time, having no discussion
with the other developers seems to be happening and I'm not at the root
of the problem.
If I'm missing the point of what's going on, somebody give me a clue. I
know I haven't done a lot of work in LFS lately, but tod
13 matches
Mail list logo
