Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
The bottom line is if it's Alex or Dan, it needs it's own repo. With
branches for LFS and CLFS, so if we make some changes, then Alex or
Dan can merge the changes in.
On similar note I talked to DJ about this also, a separate repo for
bootscripts, wi
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/24/06 00:19 CST:
> Just let us know who you want to have full access, and those he only
> need access to branches/lfs or branches/clfs. I can work offline with
> you on this.
Jim, you sure went to a lot of work without even getting approval
from the Project L
Hello,
I think that the following political question must be solved:
"Where do udev rules for devices that need software beyond BLFS belong? What
(i.e., naming or groups) should be covered?"
One of commonly-used beyond-BLFS devices is /dev/nvidia*, which is currently
(only AFAIK, because I d
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 06:28:00PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> What (i.e., naming or groups) should be covered?"
>
> One of commonly-used beyond-BLFS devices is /dev/nvidia*, which is
> currently (only AFAIK, because I don't have anything made by NVIDIA)
> assigned the 0660 mode and th
Archaic wrote:
If the nvidia subsystem is graphics, then a generic match can be made
without enumeration. Since the card won't be accessed via its device
node without X, it would be most appropriate to cover it in BLFS. Bruce
has already posted one proposal for BLFS in the blfs-dev list.
The su
On 5/24/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/24/06 00:19 CST:
> Just let us know who you want to have full access, and those he only
> need access to branches/lfs or branches/clfs. I can work offline with
> you on this.
Jim, you sure went to a lot of
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim, you sure went to a lot of work without even getting approval
from the Project Leaders. Best I can tell, neither the LFS nor
BLFS project leaders have approved the plan, much less like it.
Randy,
I had to take action. I didn't include BLFS in the repo, because
Jim Gifford wrote:
svn co http://svn.cross-lfs.org/svn/repos/udev --username {same id as
trac} --password {same password as trac}
Could you please provide https access? This would work around a broken
transparent http proxy at work.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/m
On 5/23/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok it's now setup. http://udev.cross-lfs.org/
Alex and Dan when you sign up let me know what your usernames are so I
can give you admin access to trac and full access to the SVN.
I've been foiled here. Is access through svnserve or http? I'm
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I've been foiled here. Is access through svnserve or http? I'm
getting blocked at svn:// and I can't find the repo with http://.
What's the name of the repo?
Dan, I just testing this command line out, let me know if it works for you
svn co http://svn.cross-lfs.org/svn/re
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Could you please provide https access? This would work around a broken
transparent http proxy at work.
Sure, just setup. It is using a self-signed cert so will have to accept.
hops:justin ~/tmp $ svn co https://svn.cross-lfs.org/svn/repos/udev
Error validating ser
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/24/06 00:19 CST:
Just let us know who you want to have full access, and those he only
need access to branches/lfs or branches/clfs. I can work offline with
you on this.
Jim, you sure went to a lot of work without even getting approval
Matt,
I did respond, but you chose to ignore it.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057282.html
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt,
I did respond, but you chose to ignore it.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057282.html
No, I didn't ignore it. I saw that you said "the rules are not that
different". At which point I was left scratching my head as to why you
Matt,
Let us all step out of the picture and let Dan and Alex do what they
need to. We have both provided them with the current rules, svn and trac
to do with what they need. Let both LFS and CLFS drop out of the
equation for now and let that team do what they think is right.
Dan and Al
On 5/24/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
svn co http://svn.cross-lfs.org/svn/repos/udev
I checked the logs to see what's going on, but I didn't see anything.
Let me know.
It's working fine. I just did a couple test commits. I didn't know
the path and was thrown off by svn over htt
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt,
I did respond, but you chose to ignore it.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057282.html
No, I didn't ignore it. I saw that you said "the rules are not that
different". At which point I was left scratching
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:35:09PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> What I can't understand is why, when the CLFS rules have been working
> for months, that LFS had to reinvent the wheel?
The LFS rules have existed since at least June 15, 2004. They predate the
CLFS book.
--
Archaic
Want cont
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> One of commonly-used beyond-BLFS devices is /dev/nvidia*, which is
> currently (only AFAIK, because I don't have anything made by NVIDIA)
> assigned the 0660 mode and the "video" group.
Yes, however I'm pretty sure that nvidia doesn't generate uevents
anymore. At le
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
In short: Current nvidia drivers don't seem to use udev at all
Thanks, I will remove the rule then.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
20 matches
Mail list logo
