El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 07:58, Chris Staub escribió:
> I agree there, although I think that is only in the deps. page because
> Manuel, in creating the patch, was simply copying-and-pasting my
> comments about dependencies I had made in the ticket. Those notes
> certainly should go into th
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:57:12PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
"Create some rules that work around broken sysfs attribute creation
timing in linux-2.6.15:"
This is still in. Either it needs to be pulled, or the version needs to
refer to the entity. Alex?
It needs to be pulled,
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 07:06, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> OK, here it is. I also updated the chapter07/hosts.xml file as
> discussed earlier.
Applied, many thanks.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escompo
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:42:48PM -0400, George Boudreau wrote:
>
>
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> >George Boudreau wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:42 CST:
> >
> >> It is fast enough for me and does a full LFS build in well under 2
> >>hours and can render a book in minutes.
> >
> >I have a 500mh
Ce rapport fait référence à un message envoyé avec les champs d'en-tête
suivants :
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:59:11 +0200
From: lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Le message ne peut pas êtr
On 4/13/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > I do think that the dependencies should be pulled out of the individual
> > packages. No need to duplicate it in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
>
> Yeah, I'm starting to think that too.
Fine work as usual, Chris. Anyway, I
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 16:14, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Fine work as usual, Chris. Anyway, I think the appendix looks great,
> and I'd prefer to have the deps pulled from the individual pages.
> With the info just in the appendix, you can flesh it out to useful
> lengths. What's on the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:57:12PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
"Create some rules that work around broken sysfs attribute creation
timing in linux-2.6.15:"
This is still in. Either it needs to be pulled, or the version needs to
refer to the entity.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:28:16PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
>
> Say to me if you need a new Appendix C template.
Manuel, so far everyone has been in agreement that they like the look of
it. The only thing mentioned was taking out stuff like notes about being
non-root user. As far as the softwar
M.Canales.es wrote:
If decided that dependencies info will be removed from packages files and
placed only into that new appendix, then the XML tagging for that appendix
can be simplified a lot, or to change it to use a diferent type of list, or
to use table format or elsewhere.
Yes, I think t
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:08AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
> appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should the individ
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:08AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Agreed with everything else so far.
--
JH
That's the way Manuel's patch is now. What he is saying is to change it
and *remove* that info en
M.Canales.es wrote:
Right.
Remember that the patch is only a POC. All can be modified if needed.
I just now realized what "POC" means. I feel stupid... :p
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information
Chris Staub wrote:
That's the way Manuel's patch is now. What he is saying is to change it
and *remove* that info entirely from each individual package page.
Gotcha. Sounds fine to me. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Un
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 17:05, Archaic escribió:
> Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
> effort. Why should the individual packages list their deps when the
> exact same info is in the Appendix?
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the
Chris Staub wrote:
I just now realized what "POC" means. I feel stupid... :p
Hehe, did you think he meant something like 'piece of crap'? ;D
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hehe, did you think he meant something like 'piece of crap'? ;D
--
JH
*cough*of course not*cough*
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Moved:
/sbin/ata_idto /lib/udev/ata_id
/sbin/cdrom_id to /lib/udev/cdrom_id
/sbin/edd_idto /lib/udev/edd_id
/sbin/usb_idto /lib/udev/usb_id
/sbin/vol_idto /lib/udev/vol_id
Added:
/lib/udev/scsi_id
/lib/libvolume_id.so.0
/lib/libvolume_id.so.0.61.0
/usr/include/libvolume_id.h
/us
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:59:48AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
> Moved:
>
> /sbin/ata_idto /lib/udev/ata_id
> /sbin/cdrom_id to /lib/udev/cdrom_id
> /sbin/edd_idto /lib/udev/edd_id
> /sbin/usb_idto /lib/udev/usb_id
> /sbin/vol_idto /lib/udev/vol_id
>
> Added:
>
> /lib/udev/scsi_id
> /
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 12:56:26PM -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> So when the book upgrades to -089, I think we should add extras/path_id
> to the EXTRAS variable in the build and install commands, so we have
> this script installed.
Indeed.
> I also personally think we should install the sampl
On 4/13/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chapter 6 gcc says to repeat previous sanity checks, but that doesn't
> quite work. Dan has made a proposal here (which included other sanity
> test changes):
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-March/056423.html
>
> We need to dis
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:59:30PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 16:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Recently it's been pointed out to me that the modprobe functionality
> > with aliases doesn't quite work properly for some USB modules.
>
> Sorry, my bad.
M.Canales.es wrote:
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the special tagging in Appendix C required to can point the
package filies XIncludes to the proper place inside Appendix C isn't needed.
We could take away of that {formalpara}s and emty {para}s.
Yeah, I also agre
24 matches
Mail list logo
