Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 03/02/08 16:35 CST:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>> I'm sorry but I can't continue to take this mailing list. Despite
>> request by Gerard to STFU, the noise continues. I had hoped that ther
>> was some hope for a new project, one that I might enjoy being part of.
>>
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Positive support for Jeremy...
>
> If you mean that, then you won't go. Plain and simple.
>
+1. Well said Randy.
I also do not know who Richard meant, but I didn't take it to be about
Jeremy either.
Now, forwards please...
We have had many great comments and suggestion
2008/3/3, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * PM (This is very a technical issue and an emotive one, probably one of
> the most important too as it may affect everything that follows in LFS-NG)
I am very surprised the nobody replied to my mail with the subject
"RPM: proof of concept".
> * Prese
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/3/3, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> * PM (This is very a technical issue and an emotive one, probably one of
>> the most important too as it may affect everything that follows in LFS-NG)
>
> I am very surprised the nobody replied to my mail with the subject
Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
which each answer applies instead of a simple "X" mark. The resuts may
or may not be used for
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
> which each answer applies instead of a simple "X" mark.
On Monday 03 March 2008 03:55:35 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not
> the same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
> which each answer appli
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist" ; "BLFS
Development List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:55 AM
Subject: Poll about package management
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> [X] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
> [X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
> [X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
> [ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting packag
Note: [X] is "yes, yes I do" while [~] is "depends on the system, but
mostly no".
[ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[~] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package upd
Alexander E. Patrakov schrieb:
>
> [ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
> [x] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
> [x] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
> [ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
> [ ] I deviate a lot
Hello everyone!
As I was reading for the first time the Linux From Scratch
books version 6.3 this weekend, I noticed that section:
"4.3. Adding the LFS User"
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter04/addinguser.html
is lacking of notes on security issues about the creation
of the
[X] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
[~] I deviate a lot from BLFS (not counting package updates as d
On Δευ, Μάρ 03, at 01:58 Randy McMurchy wrote:
[...]
What Randy says.
Jeremy, please follow his advices blindly.
--
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Hacking
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above i
I wrote:
(recording my own vote)
> [X] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
> [ ] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
> [X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
> [ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
> [X] I deviate a lot
On Δευ, Μάρ 03, at 08:13 Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Never thought that the discussion about the future direction of LFS makes me
> leaving. At the start time, I was somehow entusiastic and prepared me to
> contribute time when there is something for me to do. That was just a week
> ago. But than unfo
[ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[X] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
[X] I deviate a lot from BLFS (not counting package updates as d
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> [~] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
> [X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
> [ ] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
> [ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
> [ ] I deviate a lot fr
Alan Lord wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> 2008/3/3, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> * PM (This is very a technical issue and an emotive one, probably one of
>>> the most important too as it may affect everything that follows in LFS-NG)
>> I am very surprised the nobody replied to my m
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> I am very surprised the nobody replied to my mail with the subject
> "RPM: proof of concept".
It is lost in the thread. With threading on, I am struggling to find it
again. You might start a new thread.
I haven't tried your method but I expect it works as advert
On Monday 03 March 2008 05:03:56 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> George Makrydakis wrote:
> > First of all, Joe Sixpack is David's term.
>
> Yeah, I know that...
>
> > Second, I did not use Windows before Linux :)
>
> I'm not talking about you.
I do know that, but I also wanted to make it clear
> I'm talki
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:35:00 +
TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry but I can't continue to take this mailing list. Despite
> request by Gerard to STFU, the noise continues. I had hoped that ther
> was some hope for a new project, one that I might enjoy being part of.
> But the
Hey mundoalem,
> "4.3. Adding the LFS User"
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter04/addinguser.html
>
> is lacking of notes on security issues about the creation
> of the "lfs" user and "lfs" group. I know the book just can't
> cover every aspect of security problems and e
Hey everyone,
A few years back on an older machine I was performing an experiment
that unfortunately was devoured by the big /dev/null in the sky. This
was due to the untimely demise of the hard drive, processor and
motherboard as the power supply basically blew up.
Anywho, the test was to find
I suspect that my submissions here will be much like those of a lot of
other less-experienced users who don't subscribe to the dev-lists, but
spreading the poll to other lists, like 'support', could get pretty
chaotic...
> [ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
> [ ] I use LFS
-- Original message --
From: "Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write nu
Alexander E. Patrakov a écrit :
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
> which each answer applies instead of a simple "X" mar
[X] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[ ] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[ ] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
[ ] I deviate a lot from BLFS (not counting package updates as d
taipan wrote:
>> (X) Other # Portage, just because it's the native system
Isn't this "Installation script tracing with some other tool" + a unique build
system?
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscrib
On Monday 03 March 2008 16:07:38 George Makrydakis wrote:
> Writing the same in C++ uses 10% of these features if not less and its power
shines when you do not use it as a C superset.
to :
Writing the same in C++ uses 10% of the LANGUAGE FEATURES if not less and its
power shines when you do not
Jonathan Oksman wrote:
> Anywho, the test was to find out if chapter 6 packages were required
> to be built as root as the book details it. I'm considering trying
> this again but I'm not entirely sure if I have the time to deviate
> that much from the book without losing sight of my own projects
[ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[ ] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machines)
[ ] I deviate a lot from LFS (not counting package updates as deviations)
[X] I deviate a lot from BLFS (not counting package updates
I saw in a Genntoo newletter: Gettext-0.17, in LFS-SVN, includes a
subset of libXML.
Investigating, it includes a small subset of glib, a large subset of
libXML and all of libcroco. Rebuilding using the installed packages is
broken, configure doesn't correctly detect libXML and mangles the
-I
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> taipan wrote:
>>> (X) Other # Portage, just because it's the native system
>
> Isn't this "Installation script tracing with some other tool" + a unique
> build
> system?
>
"Installation script tracing", yes; "a unique build system", i'm
unqualified to comment, i
taipan wrote:
> ...But after reading the RPM spec-files you contributed (about which i
> was previously unaware) as well as some ArchLinux pkgbuild-files,
> couldn't the same characterization be applied to those PM's also (along
> with several others, i imagine)?
They would classify as "DESTDIR
Hi.
My first post to this list. Although I've been subscribed for a long time,
just to follow the development, I don't have the skills needed to contribute.
Like me, I guess that there are many people, so I think this should be asked
in lfs-user too.
Well, my answers:
> [ ] I am an editor of
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have digged up the archives of LeafOS lists and extracted RPM instructions
> and
> spec files from them. Spec files up to and including Chapter 6 bash are
> attached
> (slightly modified).
>
> Dan:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 02:55:35PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
> which each ans
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:35:05AM -0500, Jonathan Oksman wrote:
> Anywho, the test was to find out if chapter 6 packages were required
> to be built as root as the book details it.
Nope, although you do have to make a few adjustments. The package user
hint details most of the required adjustment
Here are my answers for my current (and planned future) use of LFS:
On 03/03/2008, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
> [X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
> [X] I use LFS on more than one PC (including virtual machin
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Don't speak about the project, because you're not correct in
> that assumption. What is best for you, well, only you can
> determine that. But think about what I (and others) have
> said. You're presence is good for the community.
I had no intention of replying to this thre
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:38PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> Cross platform code runs everywhere.
Um, yeah (at least in theory), but does that actually help? See the
question below that you didn't answer:
> > But what does running it on a Windows box actually gain us, that
> > presenting
Thanks for the wonderful answers Alexander and Bryan! I'll hang onto
the RPM analysis and grab that package users hint for reference the
next time I decide to start my attempts with this test over again.
Jonathan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfroms
Le Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:55:35 +0500 "Alexander E. Patrakov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems t
Here are my responses. I use a homegrown pkg manager. It used to be
based on the pkg-user + fakeroot approach, but the latest one I am
using has the pkg-user stuff removed since I found it was adding a lot
of complexity without much benefit. My current PM uses a fakeroot
approach by building and fa
On Monday 03 March 2008 20:57:48 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:38PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
> > Cross platform code runs everywhere.
>
> Um, yeah (at least in theory), but does that actually help? See the
>
> question below that you didn't answer:
> > > But what does
On Monday 03 March 2008 22:00:39 George Makrydakis wrote:
> On Monday 03 March 2008 20:57:48 Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> [snip]
> It's irrelevant to what I was saying, yes. I wasn't saying "we should
> let users read from any OS/browser/whatever" on its own. I was saying
> it, leading into the pare
Sukucorp Sukucorp wrote:
> I use a homegrown pkg manager. It used to be
> based on the pkg-user + fakeroot approach, but the latest one I am
> using has the pkg-user stuff removed since I found it was adding a lot
> of complexity without much benefit. My current PM uses a fakeroot
> approach by bu
On Monday 03 March 2008 12:55, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
> which each answer applies
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> I use the following features provided by a package manager:
> [x] Knowing where each file comes from
> [x] Clean uninstallation of a package
> [x] Removal of obsolete files when upgrading to a new version
> [ ] Ability to upgrade toolchain components (most notably, g
On Monday 03 March 2008 04:55, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Alexander,
I've added three new options that are important to me and to IPCop.
Thanks,
IvanK.
[ ] I am an editor of LFS or one of the related projects
[X] I use LFS as my primary Linux system
[X] I use LFS on more than one PC (incl
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sukucorp Sukucorp wrote:
>
> Arghh! Please stop mis-using the term "fakeroot". The real Fakeroot is a
> Debian package designed to simulate a superuser environment. What you are
> referring to is what the rest of the world
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:38PM +0200, George Makrydakis wrote:
>
>> Cross platform code runs everywhere.
>>
>
> Um, yeah (at least in theory), but does that actually help? See the
> question below that you didn't answer:
>
>
>>> But what does running it on a W
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply. If the answer is not the
> same on your different Linux systems, write numbers of systems to
> which each answer applies instead of a simple "X" mark.
2008/3/4, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [x] file conflict detection <-- essential feature
> [x] simple BLFS style dependencies <-- essential feature
> [x] pre/post install scripts <-- essential feature
> [x] ability to build the whole distro as non-root <-- killer feature
> [x] "meta
On Monday 03 March 2008 21:38:36 DJ Lucas wrote:
> Robert Daniels wrote:
> > Oops, wrote all that and forgot to actually attach the patch.
> >
> > Here it is.
>
> OK, a question for the KDE guys. The note about sysconfdir on the
> kdebase page (I know you didn't add it Robert), but what is the
> po
Robert Daniels wrote:
>
> I think by this point users should be well aware of what --sysconfdir
> does. I have no objection to removing it.
>
> What I would really like to see is the KDE (and Gnome, if applicable)
> section set up the Xorg is. In the preinstallation configuration
> section,
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:30:50 +1100
Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having said that, I believe
> PM should be a personal thing, which is why I would never advise anyone
> "you must XYZ as your PM". ie: I would never select a default PM for LFS.
On the other hand, being of the educative-ob
58 matches
Mail list logo
