gelog.
James Robertson
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
>
>> The ../configure line in the SVN-20090706 book for e2fsprogs seems to
>> not work correctly. With the new --disable-libblkid and
>> --disable-libuuid, I get the following error:
>>
>> configure: er
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> +Jan wrote:
>> Hey lfs-dev,
>>
>> I just ran through the development chapter 5 without any problems.
>> Just on the subject of util-linux-ng, there's this small section in
>> chapter 5 near the bottom:
>>
>>
>> Install the shared libraries required by E2fsprogs:
>>
>> make -C
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
>
>
>> I think 'more' is an important program to keep for building ch6 in
>> chroot. If you are sending output to log files and such, it makes doing
>> at cat [filename] a must.
>>
>
> The
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As mentioned at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00411.html,
> GCC-4.4.1 will be announced shortly.
>
> As such, do we want to squeeze this in to LFS-6.5?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.
>
I vote for inclusion. The more stable LFS as a foundation is the better
IMH
I would like to suggest a small addition to the book's base
/etc/resolv.conf file. In some (many) cases, LFSers may find that their
machines need to be on a network with multiple domains and they want to
search them locally. If we add "search " to the cat
command script and then a little bit
Kevin Buckley wrote:
> LFS 6.5
> 5.31. Stripping
>
> At this point LFS says
>
> To save nearly 20 MB more, remove the documentation:
>
> rm -rf /tools/{info,man}
>
> however on my build, there seem to be close to another 10MB below these two
> directories that could also go ?
>
> 8.7M/tools/sh
Kevin Buckley wrote:
>> This is a old / long standing point that folks bring up now and again.
>> Since /tools is very temporary, the book has not historically worried
>> about the documentation that gets installed by the temp tools.
>>
>
> Indeed!
>
> The last time I built an LFS system from
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Done at revision 9063.
>-- Bruce
>
Thanks Bruce!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> I've been investigating the Linux Standards Base core specification.
>>
>> 3. For the full spec, we also need libpam. Does this LSB core requirement
>> justify promoting PAM from BLFS to LFS?
>>
>
> Upon further review, the answer to this
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been investigating the Linux Standards Base core specification.
>
> http://dev.linux-foundation.org/betaspecs/booksets/LSB-Core-IA32/LSB-Core-IA32.html#REQUIREMENTS
>
> 3. For the full spec, we also need libpam. Does this LSB core requirement
> justify promoting PAM fro
This conversation would be better on lfs-support.
James
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find that we
> have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get to compliance.
> The
> discussion below is only a start. There may be more needed after I get their
> more comprehensive test suite
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The major reason for the existence of the LSB is to support ISVs who
>>> want to distribute software for linux. They want to have some base to
>>> be able to say "here's a package that will work on your system".
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:21:24 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm thinking about moving grub back to Chapter 6 and then changing the
>>> grub section in Chapter 8 to "Setting up the boot loader" to discuss
>>> actually
>>> installing
Steve Prior wrote:
> On 3/17/2010 2:14 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> Here's the site: http://dev.lightcube.us/~jhuntwork/LightCube/LFS-NG/
>>
>> None of the links do anything, since it's just a mockup.
>>
>> -- JH
>>
>
> Looks nice, but I don't think I'd put up a website these days that w
On 3/14/2011 12:44 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 03/14/2011 12:03 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>>
> Yes, please! Another set of eyes and additional brain power is always
> welcome! You should still have commit privs so feel free to help
> yourself. The current 'stable' boot scripts are the remnants after
>
> I'd like to discuss the direction of LFS with respect to where upstream
> developers appear to be going.
>
> Currently we use sysvinit and udev as the basis of bringing up LFS. We
> do not use an initd/initramfs or systemd.
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/InitrdReplacementOptions
> http://en.wikipe
On Mar 1, 2012 2:49 PM, "Ken Moffat" wrote:
>
> Actually, we used to have a guy who did run production
> servers - but he spent a lot of time keeping them up to date, and he
> built on one machine and then rolled the binaries out to the others
> after testing.
LOL. I still do. I am much more effi
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:00:38 -0600
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > My proposal is to just skip 'arch' completely as I do not believe it is
> > not used anywhere in LFS/BLFS.
>
> It is used in several places in BLFS (eg the pages for Liba52, nss a
This is awesome news Bruce.
This is a major accomplishment if you ask me. Good work by all in
incorporating a big change to the toolchain build. My thinking is we might
want to consider a new major version to the book.
James
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've just mer
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
> > This is awesome news Bruce.
> >
> > This is a major accomplishment if you ask me. Good work by all in
> > incorporating a big change to the toolchain build. My thinking is we
> mi
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jeremy Huntwork <
jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote:
> I've been holding back bringing this up on-list for a while because I
> intended to do the bulk of the work and then present a working system to
> the community for comment and review. I still intend to d
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <
jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/12 4:41 PM, James Robertson wrote:
>
> > 1. Adding PM is NOT a replacement for the books. It should also be
> > noted and clear that the purpose of this effort is not t
> (perl is another one I'd love to see removed, but I'm not going to
> seriously recommend that one :) )
>
>
You might start a flame war if you do that - LOL. Lots of folks still rely
and use perl a lot.
James
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscrat
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> With great sadness, I have to report the passing of Andy Benton.
>
> Oh my and so young too. Thank you Andy for all your contributions and
service to the projects.
James
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://ww
DJ Lucas wrote:
Archaic wrote:
Does anyone have opinions?
I would like to see it stay as it has actually proven useful on both
headless and remote systems. The hack that I had proposed off list,
after further review and slight modification, is actually a legitimate
way of handling the events prior
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
James Robertson wrote:
Education is always good IMO for the book. I always see this as a plus.
I also wanted interactive boot. I would like to see this as a feature
as well.
James!! Good to see you're still around. I was getting worried. :)
LOL, yea I am still her
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Hello,
Text wrapping is broken for multiline messages even on plain ASCII, as you can
see on the attached screenshot (the problem with this bootscripts exiting
unexpectedly is already fixed, but I am talking about wrong wrapping here,
not the bad version of the autos
is supposed to assign it to
the logged on person. I still need the latest 2.16 code on the server
anyways. I am going to try and get to it this weekend. Life and work
keeps getting in the way.
James
--
James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424
r needs of
merging the two together.
If you have comments or general suggestions, please post to the lfs-dev
list.
Thanks
James
--
James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 -- http://counter.li.org
Reg. LFS User -- #6981 -- http://www.linuxfromscrat
James Robertson wrote:
All,
It has also come to my attention that not all are happy with the way bz
is set up in our shop. The tool has an extensive template system that
we can take advantage of as well to customize certain pieces. Post here
if you have a wish list of some kind.
Thanks
James Robertson wrote:
All,
I have been playing with BZ 2.18.1 in my lab. I want to upgrade our two
instances as soon as possible - probably this evening if possible. The
product now supports a bug "move" function that lets you take bugs from
one bz instance and move it
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Yes, it is bug 767 opened 2004-05-14. I've been looking at the older
bugs and have been thinking about making this one WONTFIX because of the
manpower and time issues. Doing the research to figure out what the
optional dependencies provide is probably an order of magnitude h
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Randy and All. First, I want to thank all participants to this
thread for keeping it civil. I am so glad we could do that.
My opinion/vote is -1. I feel that technically speaking, Randy, your
idea is fine. It is good to have a more secure system. I also f
dentify it as such.
I changed the "Cross-LFS" version to "Branch_Cross-LFS" and added a
"Branch_GCC4" version. I did so everyone could tell what Cross-LFS and
GCC4 were for.
James
--
James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #16042
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Archaic wrote:
I think PAM is evil. ;)
Smiley noted, but do you really think this? In many cases it is
unnecessary, but it is really useful in others. For instance, in a
distributed system it is the only way I know of to use LDAP centralized
passwords.
-- Bruce
I a
David Fix wrote:
Yes to WARN. :)
+1 for this
James
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Thanks Jeremy. You will be missed. Have fun in your new endevours.
James
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
39 matches
Mail list logo
