El Domingo, 28 de Mayo de 2006 00:00, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Because I don't think the proposed method of dealing with the rules is
> beneficial to the LFS book, relative to the current organisation. I've
> already described how the books and bootscripts are handled (and it
> seems most agre
On Fri, May 26, at 08:03:13 DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>If those could happen, and the post commit hooks worked out,
> then I'd now love to merge it all into one happy lfs-etc-config package.
>
To add to the fine thoughts expressed by DJ,that the Udev/Bootscript team
(whatever you wanna call it),will also
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
perhaps a new book with any relative info that has to do with:
a.'Handling Devices' (udev)
b.'Boot process' (init schemes,bootscripts,bootmanager,etc)
c.'Automounting Devices'
d.'Volumes,raid etc...'
e.'Partitiong schemes,filesystems,etc'
f.'Kernel issues.'
I agree to wr
On Sun, May 28, at 07:04:20 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
> >perhaps a new book with any relative info that has to do with:
> >
> >a.'Handling Devices' (udev)
> >b.'Boot process' (init schemes,bootscripts,bootmanager,etc)
> >c.'Automounting Devices'
> >d.'Volumes,raid etc...
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 08:59 CST:
> I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
>
> Please vote.
You cannot expect to get realistic or meaningful responses until you
determine and specify:
1. What role does this team take?
2. What are they responsible
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 11:00:08PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> seems most agree that the current separation works well). I don't see
> why udev rules need to follow a different process than the books and
> bootscripts.
Because udev is a new and somewhat complex technology and although the L
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:23:27AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 6. Does this "team" have its own book? (every other "team" in the
>LFS projects have a book (LFS, BLFS, etc...)
Er, not quite. ALFS and LiveCD at least. (You could throw Patches and
Hints in there too, but for obvious reasons, I
On Sun, May 28, at 09:23:27 Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> You cannot expect to get realistic or meaningful responses until you
> determine and specify:
>
> 1. What role does this team take?
> 2. What are they responsible for?
> 3. Why do we need it?
> 4. What is different now that hasn't been in the
On Sun, May 28, at 05:47:48 Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
Whoops a small mistake ,fixed.
#---+
a.'Handling Devises' (udev)
b.'Boot process' (init schemes,bootscripts,bootmanager,etc)
c.'Automounting Devises,'
d.'Volumes, raid, Partitiong sc
On Sun, May 28, at 08:43:54 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the behavior of the leaders of both
> LFS and CLFS in this matter. Where is the willingness to *work* with
> each other?
>
just an example to backup your thought.
The total absence of CLFS issues in BLFS.
--
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 09:47 CST:
> Hal -> boot-procces -> udev -> kernel.
>
> Are you happy with this answer?
No. I'm more confused than before. You've thrown another thing (HAL)
into the mix. And the order above makes absolutely no sense to me.
(not that it is nonsensic
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:15 CST:
> The total absence of CLFS issues in BLFS.
You are flat wrong here. It has been explained why BLFS cannot
support CLFS issues in the book.
To say this as a negative, and something that needs to be fixed,
is way out of line.
--
Randy
rm
On Sun, May 28, at 10:20:11 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:15 CST:
>
> > The total absence of CLFS issues in BLFS.
>
> You are flat wrong here. It has been explained why BLFS cannot
> support CLFS issues in the book.
>
Then saw me the link to the desired
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:29 CST:
> Then saw me the link to the desired info,
> If you don't,can (you or Bruce) say to the rest of us (which we
> don't know these reasons),why the CLFS issues are not covered by
> BLFS at all?
You can use the search utility as well as I ca
Randy McMurchy wrote:
1. CLFS is for *cross-building*.
No It only cross-builds the equivalent of LFS Chapter 5, the rest of the build
is native. CLFS cannot build a system for i586 from i686 host without hints.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:47 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> 1. CLFS is for *cross-building*.
>
> No It only cross-builds the equivalent of LFS Chapter 5, the rest of the
> build
> is native. CLFS cannot build a system for i586 from i686 host without hints.
What is
JH, CLFS has tried here are some email's that you may of missed reading.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057321.html
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057330.html
I don't know how much more cooperative CLFS can be.
--
http://l
On 5/28/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If only to solve a political disagreement, sort of like an arbitrator,
then great, but the only disagreement I see is there are two factions
that want "their" set of rules used. I don't see a need to form a team
to create a third set of rules
On 5/28/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because udev is a new and somewhat complex technology and although the LFS
editors (yourself and Archaic, at least) have made a good stab at
understanding the process fully, it seems to me that none of the current
editors have the time avail
On Sun, May 28, at 10:39:07 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:29 CST:
>
> > Then saw me the link to the desired info,
> > If you don't,can (you or Bruce) say to the rest of us (which we
> > don't know these reasons),why the CLFS issues are not covered by
>
On 5/28/06, Ag Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then let the CLFS team to contribute to the BLFS BOOK.
One chapter with 6-8 pages I think there will be enough for the start.
They can. That is why the wiki was created and links were added to the
book for each individual package.
--
Tush
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 11:33 CST:
> Then let the CLFS team to contribute to the BLFS BOOK.
> One chapter with 6-8 pages I think there will be enough for the start.
6-8 pages of what?
We're not going to just put in instructions without backup text to
explain the instruction
On Sun, May 28, at 11:36:56 Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Ag Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Then let the CLFS team to contribute to the BLFS BOOK.
> >One chapter with 6-8 pages I think there will be enough for the start.
>
> They can. That is why the wiki was created and li
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
No it's not the same.
The links to the specific packages (that are marked as problematics,and the CLFS
team has already info),I say it again
The links to the specific packages they have to redirect the readers INTO the
BOOK and not outside.
I think they worth some ad
On Sun, May 28, at 09:59:31 Jim Gifford wrote:
> Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
> >No it's not the same.
> >The links to the specific packages (that are marked as problematics,and
> >the CLFS team has already info),I say it again
> >The links to the specific packages they have to redirect the readers
On 5/28/06, Ag Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
I nominate Alexander Patrakov as the new Leader of this project,
and also Dan Nicholson, DJ Lucas, Ken Moffat as members of the team.
+1. The way I see it, there would be
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 5/28/06, Ag Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
I nominate Alexander Patrakov as the new Leader of this project,
and also Dan Nicholson, DJ Lucas, Ken Moffat as members of the team.
One addition, I
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
I think they worth some advertisement direct from the Blfs book.
It's a major part of our community and they spend a lot of work on CLFS project,
and in a lot of other activities too (LFS,Live-cd,jhalfs,bugzilla etc...).
So I believe they deserve some special treatment fro
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 5/28/06, Ag Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
I nominate Alexander Patrakov as the new Leader of this project,
and also Dan Nicholson, DJ Lucas, Ken Moffat as members of the team.
+1. The way I s
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:35:05AM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
> One addition, I would also like to Conathan added also, even though his
> time is limited.
For those who aren't familiar with IRC and the nicks there, Conathan ==
Nathan Coulson.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> The following command in chapter 6's glibc:
>
> make -k check >glibc-check-log 2>&1
>
> Could stand with a bit of modification so it outputs to both the
> screen as well as the log file. As it is, there is no output on the
> screen at all, which is so unlike any other
Guys,
I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts and
udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so deep that
Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to whom about what.
God knows how Bruce will be able to follow it when he gets back from
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:18:40PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts and
> udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so deep that
> Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to whom about what.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:18:40PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
Guys,
I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts and
udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so deep that
Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to wh
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:50:04PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
> Round here everyone drives Quad Bikes (they're sheep farmers). Makes me
> think of you sometimes...
Heh, thanks, it's nice to be thought of. :)
> I read LFS lists via gmane usenet. So the correct irritating response
> was 'use ti
Jim Gifford wrote:
One addition, I would also like to Conathan added also, even though his
time is limited.
Limited?!? I thought he was coming back for prime time! ;-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: S
TheOldFellow wrote:
Guys,
I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts
and udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so
deep that Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to whom
about what.
/me pops up from the dark room
I use thunderbi
On Sun, May 28, at 04:59:14 Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
>
> I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
> I nominate Alexander Patrakov as the new Leader of this project,
> and also Dan Nicholson, DJ Lucas, Ken Moffat as members of the team.
>
Adding Nathan Coulson in the team
38 matches
Mail list logo
