Hi,
I notice this thread seems to have died off. I was wondering if
someone who has privileges to update the boot scripts could take a look
at this, since either localtime or UTC is suposed to be supported by the
lfs-bootscripts, but as it is, localtime is slightly broken, depending
on yo
Da: TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato:sabato 3 febbraio 2007 8.45
A:
Cc:
Oggetto: Re: Default filesystem
>I think it's wiki stuff, or hints maybe (if they are not stone dead),
>for the moment. If we get sufficient interest, AND it
On Saturday 03 February 2007 08:40, Jack Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>I notice this thread seems to have died off. I was wondering if
> someone who has privileges to update the boot scripts could take a look
> at this, since either localtime or UTC is suposed to be supported by the
> lfs-bootscripts,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So a, possible bad or wrong, idea but why not moving file system tools from
> BLFS
> (as states the name it's beyond lfs) to LFS (supposing a different fs instead
> of ext3) ?
The problem is that this would introduce optional packages to LFS (which is
traditionally sup
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bryan, the fix looks sane and simple enough, but I'm not sure what
> the process is for generating a tarball from our bootscripts in SVN.
Actually, I'm not completely sure either. ;-)
> Is it just a case of tarring up an `svn export' of the
> lfs-bootscripts repo?
It
On 2/2/07, Luca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Anyway, I am afraid that any attempt to build LFS on any filesystem
> other than ext3 is now considered an unforgivable deviation from the
> book (reason for such thought: for a long time, reiserfsprogs failed to
> build, and xfsprogs page contained a
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So a, possible bad or wrong, idea but why not moving file system tools from
>> BLFS
>> (as states the name it's beyond lfs) to LFS (supposing a different fs instead
>> of ext3) ?
>
> The problem is that this would introduce optional packa
On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having read this and thought about it some more, I guess I'd suggest
> changing the book to build into a directory, then add some chapters on
> moving the built system to a bootable partition - and then making it
> bootable.
>
> This way we can
On 2/3/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Looking at my shell history, it looks like when I made a udev-config
> tarball, I did an svn export, then renamed the directory to have the
> datestamp in its name, then tar/bzip2ed it, then grabbed an md5sum and
> updated the filename/md5sum
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Having read this and thought about it some more, I guess I'd suggest
>> changing the book to build into a directory, then add some chapters on
>> moving the built system to a bootable partition - and then making it
>> boot
Da: Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato:sabato 3 febbraio 2007 18.43
A: LFS Developers Mailinglist
Oggetto: Re: Default filesystem
Hi.
(Sorry but sending mail through ISP page so don't worry about formatting)
I'll try to be as clearer as
On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I need is something it can't handle, like Udev for several months a
> year ago, or a new booting scheme...
This is actually something I want to bring up. Our booting is dog
slow. Maybe it's time to look into making improvements. We could
On 2/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's say I choose reiserfs; I can't manage it with e2fsprogs, so the base
> system
> should include reiserfsprogs package to manage filesystem.
>
> There is no optional added step, but simply a "potential" base package needed
> added.
>
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 12:11 CST:
> On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What I need is something it can't handle, like Udev for several months a
>> year ago, or a new booting scheme...
>
> This is actually something I want to bring up. Our booting is dog
> sl
On 2/3/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 12:11 CST:
> > On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What I need is something it can't handle, like Udev for several months a
> >> year ago, or a new booting scheme...
> >
> > This i
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On my last boot, the logs show this:
>
>>From kernel.log:
> Jan 9 23:46:01 rmlscsi kernel: klogd 1.4.1, log source = /proc/kmsg
> started.
Note that this time is when klogd started, not when the kernel booted.
(At klogd start time, it reads the kernel printk ring buffer a
Bryan Kadzban wrote these words on 02/03/07 12:55 CST:
> But the machine I'm on right now is too loud at
> night, so I shut it down then, which means it boots up around once a
> day. When you boot more often, it obviously makes more sense to speed
> up the boot. ;-)
Point taken from you and Dan
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 10:45:58AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/3/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 12:11 CST:
> > >
> > > This is actually something I want to bring up. Our booting is dog
> > > slow. Maybe it's time to look into mak
On 2/3/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 10:45:58AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >
> > At the minimum, things could be vastly sped up by not serializing the
> > whole operation. Read this article from IBM for an example.
> >
> > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwor
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On a much more modern machine than the 500mhz machine I threw out
> stats on already (2400+ Athlon), from the time boot logging starts
> and the time it ends is 12 seconds. And on this machine, a few more
> processes are started.
That stat on this machine is only three s
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 12:39 CST:
> vsftpd can use the library libcap (see vsf_findlibs.sh in the source
> tree). It's a simple library that basically just wraps the syscalls in
> and puts its API in . vsftpd
> will just make the syscalls itself if doesn't exist
> (see sysdep
On 2/3/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 12:39 CST:
> >
> > Can I add this to the book?
>
> Things like this shouldn't really need 'permission'. I consider a
> missing dependency as a defect. Let's keep the option to fix defects
> available
I'm starting to add the contents for Xorg-7 (programs, libraries,
directories). How explicit should I be with these things? Do we want
full descriptions and index entries for the programs and libraries? I
don't mind doing it, but I wanted to ask before I spend some time
doing it.
--
Dan
--
http:/
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:14:06PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Point taken from you and Dan about machines that require frequent
> booting, but not to beat a dead horse, I'm throwing out one more
> statistic:
>
> On a much more modern machine than the 500mhz machine I threw out
> stats on al
On Saturday 03 February 2007 07:19, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Barius Drubeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, it is indeed a problem specific to supporting
> > and maintaining ancient systems with ancient glibc, thus
> > temporaly far *beyond* LFS, and therefore has little
On 2/3/07, Barius Drubeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thinking practically, what are the odds of more than one major tz
> change during the lifetime of an LFS book version? And how portable
> is the tz update procedure from one book version to another? IMHO,
> those two questions ought to be c
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 13:55 CST:
> I'm starting to add the contents for Xorg-7 (programs, libraries,
> directories). How explicit should I be with these things? Do we want
> full descriptions and index entries for the programs and libraries? I
> don't mind doing it, but I want
On 2/3/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/03/07 13:55 CST:
> > I'm starting to add the contents for Xorg-7 (programs, libraries,
> > directories). How explicit should I be with these things? Do we want
> > full descriptions and index entries for th
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Hi Jack. Sorry that this seems to have got dropped. I've created a ticket
> in
> Trac, #1948, so it doesn't get forgotten about again. Feel free to add
> yourself to the Cc: field if you want to follow any activity on it.
>
>
> Matt.
Thanks Matt
Jack Brown
--
Hi all,
It is with great pride that the BLFS team announces the release of
BLFS-6.2.0-rc1. This release is a candidate for the actual 6.2.0
release due out on February 14th, and is the complement to LFS 6.2.
It has been almost 18 months since the last release of BLFS and
many new packages and ins
I'm making LFS. During the installation of tcl-8.4.13 I got a problem during
"make install". It gives an error"[EMAIL
PROTECTED]:/mnt/lfs/sources/tcl8.4.13/unix$
make install
Installing libtcl8.4.so to /tools/lib/
cp: cannot create regular file `/tools/lib/#inst.15380#': Permission denied
mv:
Hello,
I,m new here and don't speak english, so, sorry my poor english.
I am following the book at great length and occour a problem on chapter 5.30
.
When i type "make -C text-utils more" i receive the following message
make: Entering directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/tmp/util-linux-2.12r/text-utils
>
> 2. The second is that once a kernel is running that it can't open
> the root filesystem. It's not just a kernel problem, as even
> kernels more recent than the 2.6.16 kernel (2.6.18 for example)
> also fail to boot.
>
had a similar problem yesterday installing LFS 6.2 using LiveCD 6.2-4
on To
Hi,
I am facing a problem regarding LFS 6.2. After installing all packages
successfully when I came to " Entering the Chroot Environment " & give
chroot "$LFS" /tools/bin/env -i \
HOME=/root TERM="$TERM" PS1='\u:\w\$ ' \
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/tools/bin \
/tools/bin/bas
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I can't see anything wrong, but I'm still having problems sending to
> LFS-Dev...checking the other lists I'm sub'd to as well. I know Bruce
> did something the other day to try to fix it and then I changed some
> things on my end as well that should have corrected it properly
35 matches
Mail list logo
