DJ Lucas wrote:
Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
-o $$ -o $PPID -x "${1}"' gives the proper result. It looks as if pi
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
-o $$ -o $PPID -x "${1}"' gives the pr
Jim Gifford wrote:
> What's needed is a way to enforce a password scheme, passwords greater
> than 8 characters, must contain alpha characters and numeric characters.
> ie dinf3102.
That is what PAM does. :)
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.li
Archaic wrote:
> I think PAM is evil. ;)
Smiley noted, but do you really think this? In many cases it is
unnecessary, but it is really useful in others. For instance, in a
distributed system it is the only way I know of to use LDAP centralized
passwords.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratc
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
LFS to confirm this?
Got permissions 1000:1000, and used 7.0-cross-lfs-20050720-x86_64
plus BLFS-stuff from www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/.
Would this have affected the build in any serious way?
Hi all,
Not sure who takes care of Bugzilla but if someone could add a
GCC4 category to the 'Versions' that are used to describe which
book the bug is noted in, it would be good. I added a bug that
is specific to the GGC4 branch, but could find no way to really
identify it as such.
--
Randy
rml
On 8/8/05, Jens Olav Nygaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
> > LFS to confirm this?
>
> Got permissions 1000:1000, and used 7.0-cross-lfs-20050720-x86_64
> plus BLFS-stuff from www.linuxfromscratch.org/bl
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/08/05 11:08 CST:
> On 8/8/05, Jens Olav Nygaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Would this have affected the build in any serious way?
>
> Nope, it won't affect the build at all. Because libtool is not used by
> any of the packages unless you regenerate autot
El Lunes, 8 de Agosto de 2005 08:42, Archaic escribió:
> Hrmm. Well if it is deemed to be more accurate using screen tags as
> opposed to just para tags, that is easily fixed, but since we aren't
> actually typing in the command as seen, but rather inserting it into
> another command, I don't know
My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour,
as reported by 'date' compared to 'hwclock --show'.
(The hw clock seems to be reasonably accurate.)
(The gain also seems to be dependent on what I do, eg., if
the system is just idle, the system clock doesn't gain as
much.)
Googling ar
Hi Folks.
After successfully building LFS-6.1 from the profiles - thanks a lot for the
great work you put into both - and then rebuilding everything with the
information you put on the errata page - thanks again, this is a good idea -
I can't help thinking something like this would be nice for
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Not sure who takes care of Bugzilla but if someone could add a
GCC4 category to the 'Versions' that are used to describe which
book the bug is noted in, it would be good. I added a bug that
is specific to the GGC4 branch, but could find no way to really
identify it
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Archaic wrote:
I think PAM is evil. ;)
Smiley noted, but do you really think this? In many cases it is
unnecessary, but it is really useful in others. For instance, in a
distributed system it is the only way I know of to use LDAP centralized
passwords.
-- Bruce
I a
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Torsten Vollmann wrote:
> Hi Folks.
>
>
> I think of this because I want to run a stable LFS on my main system but if a
> package is updated and put into LFS-trunk I'm always wondering if it could be
> applied to LFS-stable, too, or if it would mix up the build process because
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour,
Any ideas?
Yep, I just use ntp (see BLFS). My hardware clock seems to gain even
when the system is switched off! I have a bootscript that syncs the
clock to an ntp server at bootup, ntpd runs whilst th
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Well, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the debate about adding CrackLib
to LFS. There was a bunch of ideas thrown around. It seemed healthy for
the list.
Yep, I enjoyed it too. I was supposed to post my summary over the
weekend, but Real Life got in the way as it
Randy,
Have your verified that the bug with cracklib that was posted in
BLFS from a long time back has been fixed. Here is what I remember of
the bug. I know this issue had to deal with PAM but we had some
complaints about it not working without PAM, the cause was due to
cracklib being a s
Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Hi Torsten,
>
> I think you're overlooking a couple of things
Sad but true most times. Well, it's always worth a try :-)
> - editors upgrade packages and do any testing them with the current
> book. Nobody, AFAIK, is testing package updates against the last stable
>
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 15:26 CST:
> Have your verified that the bug with cracklib that was posted in
> BLFS from a long time back has been fixed. Here is what I remember of
> the bug. I know this issue had to deal with PAM but we had some
> complaints about it not workin
Ya I put in the bug report, but never got a solution back from them.
Cool at least it's fixed.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscr
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for some suggestions on how to fix the FontConfig
> instructions. Currently, they are broken if you have DocBook-utils
> installed, but don't have the SGMLSpm Perl module or JadeTeX
> installed.
>
> Here is what happens if for example you have DocBo
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
> > My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour,
>
> > Any ideas?
>
> Yep, I just use ntp (see BLFS). My hardware clock seems to gain even
> when the system is switched off! I have a bootscript that syncs the
DJ Lucas wrote:
>>> Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
>>> processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
>>> functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
>>> -o $$ -o $PPID -x "${1}"' gives the proper result. It
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:08:44AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Smiley noted, but do you really think this? In many cases it is
> unnecessary, but it is really useful in others. For instance, in a
> distributed system it is the only way I know of to use LDAP centralized
> passwords.
Radius and
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Okay..I'm not sure how (if) this affects the LSB function for pidofproc,
And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2. I've tested it to the best
of the amount of time availible, but it should be correct. Alex
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Attached should be a
> working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.
And it really should have been attached :-)
-- DJ Lucas
--- lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2-orig/lfs/init.d/functions 2005-07-05 01:09:05.0 -0500
+++ lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/lfs/init.d/functions 2005-08-
> And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
> working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.
No patch-o attach-o. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
27 matches
Mail list logo
