(Background: I needed a method to add an aliased IP address to an
existing interface. No set out method is currently available in LFS to
achieve this)
> > I think this would be a worthwhile inclusion to LFS. Have you emailed
> > lfs-dev or would you like me to?
>
> The right way to do this is to
On 6/4/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it is
> almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs all
> the same parameters as a normal static address), which makes me think
> that the ipv4-static scr
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:07 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it is
> > almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs all
> > the same parameters as a norma
On 6/4/07, Andrew Beverley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 00:09 +0200, Rabenkind wrote:
>
> > I've one card in my box and the box is a member of 3 subnets. Because here
> > are
> > three routers so i setup two aliases and the routes to have access to all
> > subnets. I've some
Andrew Beverley wrote:
> I've created an ipv4-alias script, please see attached. However, it
> is almost exactly the same as the ipv4-static script (it still needs
> all the same parameters as a normal static address), which makes me
> think that the ipv4-static script should just be updated so tha
Deskin Miller wrote:
> I'm new to the list, having recently built an LFS system on an old
> Pentium Pro machine, and I'm now in the middle of building another on
> an SMP Pentium II box. I noticed, while timing the SBU compilation of
> binutils in Section 5.3, if I put 'make && make install', that
On 6/4/07, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deskin Miller wrote:
> > [ should the book say anything about 'make -j X' on multi-core systems? ]
>
> ['make -j X' where X is number of cores is more or less optimal...]
>
> As far as mentioning it in the book... I'm not enthusiastic, since
On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Deskin Miller wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Deskin Miller wrote:
>>> [ should the book say anything about 'make -j X' on multi-core
>>> systems? ]
>>
>> ['make -j X' where X is number of cores is more or less optimal...]
>>
>> As
Deskin Miller wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Deskin Miller wrote:
>>> [ should the book say anything about 'make -j X' on multi-core systems? ]
>> ['make -j X' where X is number of cores is more or less optimal...]
>>
There are issues when running make with ot
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:16:58 -0400
George Boudreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deskin Miller wrote:
> > On 6/4/07, Miguel Bazdresch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Deskin Miller wrote:
> >>> [ should the book say anything about 'make -j X' on multi-core
> >>> systems? ]
> >> ['make -j X' where X
Deskin Miller wrote:
> Is this worth adding to the book?
Most definitely IMHO. Multi-core systems will soon be the norm. It's just
crazy not to take advantage. There used to exist a "SMP" hint somewhere.
Maybe this is it:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/OLD/parallelcompilin
11 matches
Mail list logo
