Re: bootscript logging conundrum

2005-04-20 Thread James Robertson
DJ Lucas wrote: Archaic wrote: Does anyone have opinions? I would like to see it stay as it has actually proven useful on both headless and remote systems. The hack that I had proposed off list, after further review and slight modification, is actually a legitimate way of handling the events prior

Re: bootscript logging conundrum OT

2005-04-20 Thread DJ Lucas
Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Don't you know the definition of 'hack'? > > n. > especially one which uses tools for purposes other than those for which > they were intended, might be considered a hack. Well violating the FHS but accomplishing the goal for the moment...we'll say it wasn't complete as it

Re: bootscript logging conundrum

2005-04-20 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
James Robertson wrote: Education is always good IMO for the book. I always see this as a plus. I also wanted interactive boot. I would like to see this as a feature as well. James!! Good to see you're still around. I was getting worried. :) -- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mail

Re: bootscript logging conundrum

2005-04-20 Thread Nick Matteo
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 02:15, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > > BTW, just to clarify, I had refered to it as a 'hack' myself, not > > Archaic. > > Don't you know the definition of 'hack'? > > n. > > 1. A clever or elegant technical accomplishment, especially one with a > playful or prank

possible typo in testing?

2005-04-20 Thread Thomas Reitelbach
"Shadow fails to update the time of last login as noted by lastlog when logging into a regular console. The Port (tty) column does get updated." Is the last sentence correct? Or should it be the negation "The Port (tty) column does _not_ get updated."? *wondering* Thanks, Thomas pgpmrF7hH0DU

Re: possible typo in testing?

2005-04-20 Thread Randy McMurchy
Thomas Reitelbach wrote these words on 04/20/05 17:19 CST: > "Shadow fails to update the time of last login as noted by lastlog command> when logging into a regular console. The Port (tty) column does get > updated." > > Is the last sentence correct? Or should it be the negation "The Port (tty)

Cross-build testing

2005-04-20 Thread Jeremy Utley
Just for a heads up to the rest of the community. Since one of the goals of the new cross-lfs stuff is to make a useable 64-bit build of LFS, and since I have a AMD64 machine with LOTS of empty hard drive space, I'm working on setting up partitions with each of the major 64-bit distributions insta

Typos

2005-04-20 Thread Peter Ennis
1.2. Changelog s/ Below is a list of changes made since the previous release of the book, first a summary, then a detailed log./ Below is a list of changes made since the previous release of the book. First a summary, then a detailed log./ April 4, 2005 [matt]: No need to manually create /var/l

Re: Planning for Cross-LFS/Multi-Architecture 7.x Release

2005-04-20 Thread Archaic
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote: > > Another one: when you reboot you're alone. No mail, no web, no IRC, no > possibility to ask for help if something go bad while building the new > system. IMO, his is a red-herring argument if the ability to chroot exists (uni-arc

Re: Planning for Cross-LFS/Multi-Architecture 7.x Release

2005-04-20 Thread Ryan . Oliver
Archaic wrote: >On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote: >> >> Another one: when you reboot you're alone. No mail, no web, no IRC, >no >> possibility to ask for help if something go bad while building the >new >> system. > >IMO, his is a red-herring argument if the ability