Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> If at the end of the day the current DocBook setup can no longer deliver
> what we need, and nobody can find a way to make it work, then we'll have
> to do what it takes to get the job done. Staying with
> DocBook/XML/whatever is never a requirement. We'll use what w
TheOldFellow wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:11:53 -0700
> Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The more we discuss it, the more PM becomes a focal point. I agree with
>> Greg Schafer in that the actual choice of PM is a user's choice in the
>> end and shouldn't matter.
>>
>> About al
DJ Lucas wrote:
> please ream my response
*read
LOL, and on that note, good night.
-- DJ
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
2008/3/5, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jeremy relayed an idea in one of his emails that I brought up again.
> Maybe you didn't see it, or maybe it just doesn't apply to the question
> you posted. In which case, can you clarify what you are after as I must
> have misunderstood.
I am af
2008/3/5, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> > So, please express your ideas in the following areas:
> >
>
>
> First and foremost, SLOW DOWN How about some baby steps instead of
> leaps and bounds. The recent threads are going nowhere because we have
> 20
2008/3/5, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The more we discuss it, the more PM becomes a focal point. I agree with
> Greg Schafer in that the actual choice of PM is a user's choice in the
> end and shouldn't matter.
Correct.
> About all we should attempt to do is inform the user of all t
2008/3/5, Jeremy Henty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dillo Classic certainly works well enough to be useful. Is that
> enough?
No, please go to http://www.lenta.ru/ (a Russian news site) and see
wrong characters (if you don't apply the i18n patch). Ag decided that
Links compiled without graphics
2008/3/5, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you feel you can talk about a potential PM candidate for LFS, please
> write up a document that outlines the following:
OK, deb--in my opinion, not a candidate at all. But let's have it just
for comparison.
> - it's strengths and weaknesses
Hello all,
I am currently working on getting a patch together for gnupg-2.0.8, to
close out http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/2422 , and so we
can clean up the dependency lists some, something Randy started back in
August by adding most of the dependencies.
Right now I'm running int
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 07:52:19 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> [snip]
> 3) How (from what form of sources) should all of this stuff be generated?
One option then:
There should be a variably verbose XML - based format describing everything
from different languages for the end user (internatio
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.
I wrote:
> Please reply to this message (please, limit this to the lfs-dev list
> only) and mark with "X" the items that apply.
Any replies after this will be ignored. Thanks for your input.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the current DocBook toolchain is meant to produce a
> single book with instructions that are meant for copying and pasting.
> It is not suitable for generating both the non-PM-aware instructions
> and spec files from the same source, and is not able
> I really do disagree with this stance. As an educative, as well as
> practical project, we should show at least one worked example. Just
> like we do with SysVInit and the bootscripts (which several of us
> don't ever use any more). No one has to use the example, but the
> example itself shows
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> The more we discuss it, the more PM becomes a focal point.
>
> We need a clearly defined list of pros, cons and technical explanations
> plus their limitations of each viable choice - all the information that
> a user needs to make an informed decision while keeping in m
>> This idea didn't come to fruition mostly due to server resource
>> limitations. That problem shouldn't exist anymore nowadays.
>
> Here I am not sure whether I agree about the reason, but this
> disagreement is off-topic for this thread.
It truly was the primary reason. The LFS server back t
First, thanks to all the participants for the input.
For the purpose of processing the data, any "~" was interpreted as "no" (except
for David Jensen's "[~] I am an editor" answer), and some vote marks were
corrected if they contradict the words placed near them. E.g., Vladimir A.
Pavlov didn't
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Still, please provide them. With only 8 editors who answered the poll,
> the correlation coefficients involving the "I am an editor" checkbox
> have an expected relative error of 35%, and you can bring this down
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - It has a lot of legacy features that were oriented to the old
> versions of autoconf (see, for example, how the %makeinstall macro
> expands--BTW RedHat doesn't use this macro)
Nobody uses this anymore, but it
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:54:37 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I really do disagree with this stance. As an educative, as well as
> > practical project, we should show at least one worked example. Just
> > like we do with SysVInit and the bootscripts (which several of us
> > d
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 20:21, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Now the important, in my opinion, parts:
>
> DESTDIR-based techniques are not as popular as others!
Why you made such conclusion from this poll?
> ...
> The "I rebuild often" and "I use the scripting feature of the PM"
Interesting results, I'm glad you did this Alexander. It's very
interesting to see how what everyone thinks is important balanced
against one another.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "I rebuild often" and "I use the scripting feature of the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
I.e., again, we have to learn more about
> package management before attempting to write about it.
>
exactly why I didn't vote, I don't know enough to have any meaningful
input :)
Jaqui
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxf
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:27PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> Now the important, in my opinion, parts:
>
> DESTDIR-based techniques are not as popular as others! So we have to learn
> them
> first before writing about them. Probably, this happens because the current
> LFS
> book
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 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-r
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You seem to be striving for perfection. When I want all the bells and
> whistles I run a mainstream distro. It is simply too labour intensive to
> have "the lot" on a self built system. I looked at the amount of effort
>
On Monday March 3 2008 07:47:16 am mundoalem wrote:
> 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
>
Robert Connolly wrote:
> On Monday March 3 2008 07:47:16 am mundoalem wrote:
>> 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/st
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/05/08 11:22 CST:
> What package management requirements the book uses aren't really that
> important to me, which is why I didn't answer. I'd much rather just
> follow what the community wants.
What Dan said. (as an explanation why I didn't answer as well)
I'
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/05/08 19:51 CST:
> We can't cover *every* possibility.
That is so true. However, HLFS should be the fall back that covers
*every* possibility. A mention of the LFS user being created on the
host machine using a strong password probably wouldn't hurt.
--
Randy
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> does it
>> allow running arbitrary scripts on the DESTDIR contents before
>> actually creating a package?
>
> Um, I don't think so. However, while Pacman itself is written in C, the
> "makepkg" portion of the system is a Bash script which allow
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> You seem to be striving for perfection. When I want all the bells and
>> whistles I run a mainstream distro.
>
> Without this, LFS is unsuitable for production use.
Expletive! I use LFS all the time for production use without PM. Alex,
lab
I wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> You seem to be striving for perfection. When I want all the bells and
>> whistles I run a mainstream distro.
>
> Without this, LFS is unsuitable for production use. Nevertheless, people
> want it. There are only two ways to deal with this situation: make LFS
> w
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Some people do want to use LFS in production. There are only two ways to deal
> with this situation: make LFS work perfectly, or drive them away from LFS,
> e.g.,
> by including somewhere in the preface some concrete missing features that
> make
> LFS unsuitable
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Some people do want to use LFS in production. There are only two ways to deal
> with this situation: make LFS work perfectly, or drive them away from LFS,
> e.g.,
> by including somewhere in the preface some concrete missing features that
> make
> LFS unsuitable
Was just trying this package out, and I noticed it appeared to have
more runtime optional dependencies then were listed on the page.
hal-device-manager wants pygtk (which wanted pygobject).
--
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
--
nathan at linuxfromscratch org
conathan at gmail com
--
http://linuxfr
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>>> does it
>>> allow running arbitrary scripts on the DESTDIR contents before
>>> actually creating a package?
>> Um, I don't think so. However, while Pacman itself is written in C, the
>> "makepkg" portion of the s
37 matches
Mail list logo
