The installation of Vim mentions changing "the default locations of
vimrc" - "locations" should just be "location."
Also, in the installation of Shadow, the text describing the step of
eliminating the groups program never really looked right to me...
"Remove the installation of the groups pro
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
1) Are the utilities and/or interfaces the package provides mandated
by any of the following standards?
* Linux Standard Base (LSB-3.0)
I'd rather not mention this (very strict) standard without reading it.
It requires both other menti
El Sábado, 6 de Agosto de 2005 12:46, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Err, yeah. I should have been clearer on which bit of the LSB I was
> referring to here. I was just looking at using table 15-1 -
> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-gener
>ic/command.html#AEN21
M.Canales.es wrote:
On that table there is, among others, "crontab", "mailx" or "sendmail", that
don't look very appropriate for a base development system.
I realise that. My initial proposal wasn't saying "We must implement
everything mandated by the FHS, LSB and POSIX standards". It was
Chris Staub wrote:
The installation of Vim mentions changing "the default locations of
vimrc" - "locations" should just be "location."
Also, in the installation of Shadow, the text describing the step of
eliminating the groups program never really looked right to me...
Thanks Chris. I've fi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Chris Staub wrote:
The installation of Vim mentions changing "the default locations of
vimrc" - "locations" should just be "location."
Also, in the installation of Shadow, the text describing the step of
eliminating the groups program never really looked right to me...
Chris Staub wrote:
Thanks, but the original suggestion also had "disable" instead of
"remove" for the shadow instructions, which I think is more accurate.
So it did! Fixed now, thanks.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscri
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 12:12:12PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Having said that, obviously if someone suggests adding Sendmail (or
> some other MTA) to the book, it'd be thrown out on the basis of the
> other criteria.
Darn. There goes my next proposal... ;)
--
Archaic
Want control, educ
Hi all,
Noted in the most recent build of LFS (using the GCC4 branch, but
this probably would affect trunk as well) is that the Libtool
installation installs files in /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/ with
1000:1000 permissions instead of 0:0 (root:root).
Can anyone check and see if this is the case on
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:56:17AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
> LFS to confirm this?
If 6.1 is recent enough, then I can say that the perms are 0:0 here.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating
Archaic wrote these words on 08/06/05 10:02 CST:
> If 6.1 is recent enough, then I can say that the perms are 0:0 here.
We'll need to get a more recent build from somebody. Stable uses
Libtool-1.5.14 and Development uses 1.5.18.
I see the issue using 1.5.18
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2
Randy McMurchy([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:56:17AM -0500:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted in the most recent build of LFS (using the GCC4 branch, but
> this probably would affect trunk as well) is that the Libtool
> installation installs files in /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/ with
> 1000:1000 per
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 08/06/05 10:11 CST:
> Randy McMurchy([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:56:17AM -0500:
>>Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
>>LFS to confirm this?
>
> Confirmed.Same permissions as yours Randy.
Thanks, now just to decide whethe
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 18:11 +0300, Ag Hatzim wrote:
> Randy McMurchy([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:56:17AM -0500:
> >
> > Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
> > LFS to confirm this?
>
> Confirmed.Same permissions as yours Randy.
>
Can confirm this here
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 10:28:32AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Thanks, now just to decide whether to chown the files in the source
> tree before 'make install', or just use the chown command originally
> posted after 'make install'.
I prefer chowning the source tree myself that way the files
> Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
> LFS to confirm this?
Confirmed here, Randy, and I'm running SVN-20050730. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informati
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Noted in the most recent build of LFS (using the GCC4 branch, but
this probably would affect trunk as well) is that the Libtool
installation installs files in /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/ with
1000:1000 permissions instead of 0:0 (root:root).
Thanks Randy. This wa
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/06/05 14:59 CST:
> 1) Patch libtool using the upstream patch
> 2) Do the `chown` on the installed files ourselves
> 3) Do the `chown` on the source files ourselves
>
> I'd prefer to go with #1 as it prevents having to even discuss the
> relative merits of
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Seriously, I like #2 or #3 simply because it is one less thing to have
to download.
Good point.
I can see the text if you decide on #3. "Some of the files installed
by the package have incorrect ownership".
"Correct the ownership of the libltdl data files:" should
Hello,
a sample LFS-like system that supports UTF-8 is available on a live CD.
So, it may be a good idea to create an experimental branch of the LFS
book that incorporates the same changes. LFS built according to that
branch should work in both UTF-8 and traitional locales. So, patches
that m
I wrote:
BUGS ON THE CD:
see
http://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/viewcvs.cgi/x86/branches/utf8/BUGS?rev=549&root=livecd&view=markup
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information pa
Hi all,
I would like to request that trunk be updated to the latest release
of the Shadow package (4.0.11.1). There is an additional configure switch
that needs to be added to enable shadowed groups, as you all are already
aware.
This would make it a bit simpler on the BLFS side, as a patch for P
22 matches
Mail list logo
