Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-16 Thread +Jan
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > > What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib > => /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and > no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it just looks like an ugly > hack. I'd much rather (for aesthetic r

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-16 Thread Andrew Benton
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:04:03 -0400 "+Jan" wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > > > > > What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib > > => /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and > > no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it j

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-16 Thread Steve Jones
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, DJ Lucas wrote: > On 03/14/2011 12:03 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: > > > > > >On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:45 PM, DJ Lucas >> wrote: > > > >On 03/13/2011 11:39 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> * LSB Compliance - For LFS we are nearly there anyway.

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-16 Thread Dan Nicholson
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> On 03/14/2011 12:03 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: >> > >> > >> >On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:45 PM, DJ Lucas > >> wrote: >> > >> >    On 03/13/2011 11:39 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: >

Re: Thinking forward LFS-7.0

2011-03-16 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >> Do you have the link to initd-tools. Â I've searched all morning and >> can't find anything. Â I'm thinking of trying the LSB scripts on my next >> build now that linux=2.6.38 is out. > > http://people.freedesktop.org/