Matt Darcy wrote:
This mailing list is clearly not working, what is the point of trying to
use this list to communicate with other developers when it is pretty
clear that it is impossible to have a discussion on a topic despite
clear requests to no do certain things, people still ignore it and
Matt Darcy wrote:
I was wrong and once again return to my belief that this mailing list is
not working and needs to be moderated or subscription.
This list *is( subscription only.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscrib
Matt Darcy wrote:
I think we are going to disagree here I'm pretty calm about this, and
I've got not problem with patience, I was happy to wait for responses
and dicussion to pick up, I am frustrated that I called out in detail
how I didn't want this thread to turn out, and people just ignored
Jim Gifford wrote:
I see to many conflicts of interest. I see a lot of ALFS stuff getting
merged into the LFS book, with no real discussion.
What do you mean "a lot of ALFS stuff"? You've commented on one idea
today, the md5sums, that is ALFS-oriented. What else are you referring to?
--
JH
-
Jim Gifford wrote:
Perhaps you should visit more often. ;) There have been a few udev rules
threads that I'd appreciate your comments on, too.
I've never seen a ticket assigned to me to answer questions. After all
that's why we have the ticket system in place.
I think perhaps we have diffe
Ioan Ionita wrote:
Ok, I feel like a complete retard. I decided to give jhalfs a spin,
but I can't figure out how to make the script run in the first place.
I don't get all the stuff about symlinks in the README. if I want to
build a Makefile for lfs, am I supposed to run ./lfs from the top
direc
Looking at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/report/3 ,
we have only 8 tickets left slated for 6.2, and a couple of them are
easy ones. In fact, none of them are marked as 'defect' and I would say
only about half should be done before we branch for testing - the others
are just data to drop
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:02:01PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Given that, can we mark which ones we want/need to have done before we
branch for testing and then set a branch target date?
The two marked high must be done before branching. The rest are textual
(expect for the
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
1032 New users and groups
I've had private conversations about this with other devs. My opinion
is that this is not broken. Others have philosophical differences.
Mark as wontfix.
This may be the right course, but I'll let Archaic make that call since
his name's on the t
Archaic wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 07:18:25PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Once you get the kernel in, unless there's another release before we're
ready to branch or one is released after we branch with security fixes,
I say we freeze kernel updates.
So basically you co
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
I'm afraid since the md5sums need to be checked and the url's can
sometimes time out or are not 100% up, my hand needs to be in the ftp
update process. So I'm not sure what else we can do besides storing
them in the book also, like BLFS, if you want jhalfs to always ha
Archaic wrote:
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but just to make sure, I'm wanting
to add the udev-config stuff to the root of the LFS repo just like the
bootscripts are. We currently have no revision control and that is just
a hassle.
Any arguments against this?
If you do that it will tak
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Archaic wrote:
Matt, any objection to removing these obsolete branches from trunk?
LFS-RNG alphabetical cross-lfs multi-arch udev_update
Seems to me that the only one that needs to stay (maybe) is LFS-RNG. The
rest have either been merged or abandoned.
--
JH
--
http:
The LFS LiveCD team is pleased to announce the latest pre-release of the
x86-6.2 LiveCD, x86-6.2-pre4. This latest version features a change in
the method used to allow write access to the root filesystem. Instead of
unionfs, which has proven to be unstable, device-mapper and an ext2
image are
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Manual creation is also consistent with the situation with network
devices in
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter07/network.html.
From what I've read so far, I'm leaning towards the manual creation.
It's consistent with the rest of the bo
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
+1, because I don't believe in educational value with udev. For most of
BLFS editors, it's a black box. Editors just expect someone to configure
udev properly, so that they don't have to think about it. Unfortunately,
udev is one of the packages that _require_ compl
Ken Moffat wrote:
Nice catch! The absence of help2man is even in my log, either I
didn't notice it, or I thought I didn't need it because we weren't
messing with the man page. In fact, the i18n patch is doing this -
it updates src/diff.c, but in man/Makefile after configure has run
I can see t
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
1) BLFS still has http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1957 .
Since BLFS has marked this as WONTFIX, the fact that BLFS includes known
broken applications without notice must be mentioned in LFS, and support
should be disclaimed completely. Ideally, it shoul
Archaic wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:03:49AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
I surely don't see it that way.
Not that yes or no question, the fact that a lot of questions have had
to be asked to write up the deps of various packages to contend for the
differences.
It would certainly help
Dan Nicholson wrote:
And as Randy said, Xorg-6.9 is in maintenance mode only now. So, that
would leave XFree as the monolithic build of choice as long as
development continues. In that case, it should stay in the book if
there's an editor to support it.
While that certainly helps, I'm not sur
M.Canales.es wrote:
IMHO, the best solution is to drop both and create a separate Udev-Rules
project managed by a neutral developer.
Heh, that's great - and I can't believe no one said it before now. And
Alexander is the perfect guy for the job, if he's willing. If you want
neutrality and a w
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Even though I'm sure it'll differ very little (if at all) from what's
currently in LFS, sure, go ahead. Obviously we can't presume Alexander
will agree to maintain it, so if there are any other volunteers then I'm
all ears.
Well, if Alexander doesn't want the job, my s
Jim Gifford wrote:
The bottom line is if it's Alex or Dan, it needs it's own repo. With
branches for LFS and CLFS, so if we make some changes, then Alex or Dan
can merge the changes in.
On similar note I talked to DJ about this also, a separate repo for
bootscripts, with the same requirements
Andrew Benton wrote:
Seems to me that the only BLFS editor who has installed xfree86-4.6.0 is
the one who opened the bug to have it removed from the book...
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1966
You meant this one?
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1973
--
JH
--
http:/
Jim Gifford wrote:
Is this acceptable to all.
The bootscripts package and udev rules seem to me to be two separate
issues here, and at least until there's shown to be some benefit of
merging those two together, I'd prefer to keep them separate. So far,
most seem agreeable to making the udev
Matthew Burgess wrote:
So, what are the drawbacks to this approach? Why won't it work?
My comments below are concerning udev *only*. As I've said, to me, the
bootscripts are a separate issue.
What you suggested is the approach that LFS has assumed up to now and
CLFS has rejected. If I'm vi
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
we still need to hear Alexander's comments on it, so let's give him
the time he needs. (I think he's sleeping, atm.)
He is gone for another week at least, an exam and other things until
20060602:
http://archives.linuxfroms
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
What you have described, Matt, has been tried and has failed.
I think it's a bit too soon to be saying that it's failed. LFS has only
been using a udev-config tarball, the contents of which come from the
LFS svn repo, for a short
Jim Gifford wrote:
If we have a common repo for all projects, the unique issues that arise
from the projects can be addressed in the private repo there, under a
neutral parties control. Face it LFS and CLFS both don't want to give up
what we currently have, and _/* The CLFS team is trying to co
Chris Staub wrote:
Currently, the book has www.gzip.org as the home page for gzip. I think
it should point to the gzip page on gnu.org -
http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/. Gzip.org is clearly out-of-date (it
says the current version is 1.2.4 and references a "beta" version of
1.3.3), and the g
Hello Everyone,
After reviewing LFS in preparation for the changes that went in with
r7632, I saw again the note (previously in gcc-pass2, but now in
chapter06/gcc) which suggests comparing your gcc test results to what's
here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/development/
I believe
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 01:11:28PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
> I would think intel/amd is sufficient if even that is necessary. It
> would be easy to go overboard on this, though. As for jhalfs versus my
> logs, if the test output was separated from the rest, then it is
> feasible, other wise we are ta
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 11:00:08PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> seems most agree that the current separation works well). I don't see
> why udev rules need to follow a different process than the books and
> bootscripts.
Because udev is a new and somewhat complex technology and although the L
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:23:27AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 6. Does this "team" have its own book? (every other "team" in the
>LFS projects have a book (LFS, BLFS, etc...)
Er, not quite. ALFS and LiveCD at least. (You could throw Patches and
Hints in there too, but for obvious reasons, I
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:35:05AM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
> One addition, I would also like to Conathan added also, even though his
> time is limited.
For those who aren't familiar with IRC and the nicks there, Conathan ==
Nathan Coulson.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:18:40PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts and
> udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so deep that
> Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to whom about what.
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:50:04PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
> Round here everyone drives Quad Bikes (they're sheep farmers). Makes me
> think of you sometimes...
Heh, thanks, it's nice to be thought of. :)
> I read LFS lists via gmane usenet. So the correct irritating response
> was 'use ti
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
I truly don't think anything I have said in this email is news. It's
been suggested before by a few people. The ideas got lost or
misunderstood. After talking to Jim and Matt we're all on the same page
now and the idea of letting a group of people who are more specialized
Jim Gifford wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
For instance, today I'll be adding a new package that has a bootscript.
If DJ is on vacation or whatever, the package will not work. What
good does this serve the community.
BLFS bootscripts are different than the other groups (as explained).
It's ca
Randy McMurchy wrote:
What text will be in the LFS book. "Here is the current LFS tarball
to install after you complete LFS. It also has BLFS bootscripts in
it, but they probably aren't current, so you'll need to get a
different tarball for BLFS." :-(
But in reality, how often are issues with
Andrew Benton wrote:
So what you're saying is that the current LFS editors are incompetent so
lets get new people in?
Andy, you're missing the point of the proposal. It's not about any
technical issue, or whether the rules are correct for any project, but
it's organizational only and its purp
Alan Lord dsl.pipex.com> writes:
> PPS - What ever happened to Jeremy Huntwork?
I fell into a large vat of toxic waste and was transformed into a mighty
superhero. (Powdered Toast Man?) Been too busy fighting crime to help with LFS.
:)
Actually, some time ago I emailed several of the cor
Hi Everyone,
I was poking around a bit today on wiki.l14h.org and noticed that the
LiveCD Trac system was cluttered with spam tickets. It seems to have
sparked a little annoyance in me, because I went to check if I could
still get administrative access. A little to my surprise, I was able to
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Indeed, jhalfs is just a very good tool. I have a plan of building a new
MiniCD with it, by patching the minimum of additional packages into the
LFS book and running the jhalfs script on that patched book. Is this OK
for jhalfs maintainers?
I, at the least, woul
Hello,
Was taking a peek at this ticket:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1625
I thought I'd test out current expect/tcl to see if I couldn't tickle
the bug. On a finished system, I mimicked the chapter 5 tcl/expect
installation to a temporary location, something like /test/bin. The
Greg Schafer wrote:
Exactly where you were before. Nothing has changed.
Yes, mostly. With the exception that I know a little bit more about the
history of the patch. :) If you, or anyone else, has more information on
the reasons why the expect devs say that it's a problem with tcl (or
that H
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Thanks Jeremy, and a belated welcome back!
Thanks. Not sure exactly what my status is or to what level I'm
committing myself, but it's nice hearing from you all again.
As Trac seems to have lost the original
test script I put up, I've added another one (I'd lost the o
Dan Nicholson gmail.com> writes:
> On 9/25/06, Matthew Burgess linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> >
> > What about something like:
> >
> > tar -xf linux-2.6.18.x.tar.bz2
> > cd linux-2.6.18.x
> > mkdir /tools/tmp
> > make mrproper
> > make headers_check # For testing
> > make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=/tools/
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
If you don't like the above approach, then I suggest we put in an explanation as
to why we install to a temporary directory first and add the '-v' flag to the cp
command.
Actually, after looking through the Linux Makefile a bit, I think our
commands for
Here's an interesting error. Happens in Chapter 5 Bash, when running
'make install', using lfslivecd-x86-6.2-3 as the host:
( cd ./po/ ; make DESTDIR= install )
make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/leafos/sources/bash-3.2/po'
test -z "[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ru.gmo" || make [EMAIL PROT
Dan Nicholson wrote:
In fact, it's probably simpler if we just pass --disable-nls to
everything since the localization just bloats /tools anyway. DIY has
been doing this for a long time by putting enable_nls=no in a
CONFIG_SITE file.
Well, at least for /tools, I'd vote for using --disable-nls e
Robert Connolly wrote:
There are now 5 patches in:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-3.2-patches/
Maybe its worth combining them.
Indeed. In fact, as I look at those there, I see that Jim already
submitted a patch that they've accepted for this very issue:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-3.
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I like this better. Cleaner, shorter, and it uses the defaults from
the package. And doing the check doesn't hurt ever. Jeremy, what tools
are needed in the check? I just don't want to add to the host system
requirements for the Ch. 5 headers.
Not sure what it uses when che
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I like this better. Cleaner, shorter, and it uses the defaults from
the package. And doing the check doesn't hurt ever. Jeremy, what tools
are needed in the check? I just don't want to add to the host system
requirements for the Ch. 5 head
Hey Everyone:
For some time now there have been little things about the current
website that have irked me somewhat. Mostly, it's the inconsistencies in
display between browsers, but there were other small things. So I spent
a little time today refining the site and (hopefully) improving the
look.
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I sort of liked the old graphic better, but it's more consistent with
the wiki.
Well, I'll work with whichever people prefer.
I like it!
Thanks. The graphic isn't as important to me as the change in menus. The
current menus trigger a nasty bug in IE and the little bit
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Right, people have said that before. But that hides the wiki unless
you're already aware that the bug system is part of the wiki. There's
all sorts of great stuff on the BLFS wiki, but the only people that
know about it are the people that are already fairly active in the
pro
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I think the wiki for the main LFS pages may affect mirroring, but I'm
not sure about that. Is there a way to make updates to some pages
restricted to a group?
Yes, I believe so. I think you can create your own groups and add users
and then set permissions on the group. I ha
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Are you saying Linux group or wiki group? I do know that I can create a
wiki group and add users. What I don't know is how to set permissions
for a subset of of the site or an individual page. I see, for instance,
"actions" such as WIKI_CREATE or WIKI_MODIFY, but AFAICT thes
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
The problem is that the wrong answer is given to the original poster by
TWO editors, and nobody corrected them. On this basis, I declare that
locale issues are not really supportable (and DIY is right in ignoring
them), and demand immediate removal of all UTF-8 rela
Hey All,
Would anyone mind if I helped out a bit with the development here again?
If not, I would require svn access. If so, well, fair enough. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Can't keep away, eh?
Yeah, it's a sickness. There should be a LFS rehab center somewhere...
Any help is appreciated. You are good to go.
Thanks, looks like it works.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
This is because the target 'headers_check' includes 'headers_install' as
a dependency, and therefore runs that first:
You're obfuscating here for no good reason. In fact, your logic is flawed.
Taking your view to extreme
Greg Schafer wrote:
Ummm, you completely missed the point. The /tmp removal stuff is fine. The
removal of `make headers_install' is what's questionable.
Have you actually studied the Makefile contents? The results of the
current commands would be the same as if you ran (which, btw, would also
Greg Schafer wrote:
FFS, this whole new way of obtaining sanitized headers has become known as
the "make headers_install" method and you've gone and removed that very
command! Not very educational IMHO. Hope it's clearer now.
Alright, I can see where you're coming from. So ideally, to make use
Alan Lord wrote:
It's good to see you back contributing Jeremy. Just don't wind up Randy
too much ;-)
Thanks, Alan. Meant to say 'hi' earlier, but got caught up in other
things. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubsc
Hey All,
There's several parts of the website that need updating, and I was
hoping to get feedback from those of you in the know. Here's some of the
main things I need help with:
* The various Who's who sections for all projects
* Nearly all of the ALFS sub-project - I trimmed the home page somew
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 01:19:13PM -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> The only problem I have is that when the new server goes into place,
> that you removed CLFS from all the pages. When the new server comes
> online we are going to mirror our content back to LFS.org. Couldn't you
> have just linked t
Hello All,
On a system based on very recent LFS development (last week or so...) I
see this:
# grep /tools /usr/bin/* -R
/usr/bin/mk_cmds:SED=/tools/bin/sed
This is because e2fsprogs is built before our final sed. (The book even
mentions in the Appendix that sed must be built before e2fsprogs.)
Greg Schafer wrote:
Sidenote: I recently got rid of the /bin/stty symlink by modifying the
Expect installation:
http://www.diy-linux.org/reference-build/temptools.html#tt-expect
Inspired by my recent commit? :) Yours is better, though, I will admit,
since it actually removes the need for any
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Create yourself an account and try to find an associated ticket with
each of those packages. Add your comments about your experience. If
there's no ticket describing one of those packages, create a new one.
This way, the comments won't go away, and the developer has another
p
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Turn it back on, please. I'll keep my eye on Recent Changes in case
there are really patient people who will wait for belgarath only to
vandalize it.
Done. BTW, you are listed as a TRAC_ADMIN for the BLFS Trac which means
when you login you should see an Admin tab in the m
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Yep, I noticed that. I'll let Jeremy sort that out, if he thinks it is
worth tackling, if you don't mind Jeremy?
No problem. I'll get to it shortly.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
I will set up a virtual machine on ums.usu.ru to build this branch
nightly and mail failures to the list. Then, write access to that branch
should be given to all LFS and BLFS editors, so that, when they update a
package in the book, they also make the corresponding
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 12/07/06 00:10 CST:
This is a formal request to either integrate Tushar's hint on installing
multiple versions of autotools into the LFS book, or move autotools to
BLFS and integrate the hint there.
-1. I can't see multiple vers
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:20:53AM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Just FYI, Alexander, but nobody can really see what is being committed
> right now in any of the books, so don't be surprised if there are
> "no objections". Mail is not being sent for the commits, therefore, the
> only way to check
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Yeah, yeah. OK, what server is preferred?
>
> How about ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/unix/irc/server/irc2.9.5.tgz ?
Use unreal. It's fairly easy and secure. Also, IIRC, the documentation
for it should be on quantum already.
I'll poke arou
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I was wondering if the IRC logs are available online. It doesn't look
> like it to me, at least not at the old location:
No, they aren't currently publicly available. Although, they could be
made so if enough people deemed it necessary or desirable.
--
JH
--
http://linuxf
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter05/linux-headers.html
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/linux-headers.html
After looking at the pages again, it seems to me that the confusion
arises because of the title of the page.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> See Manuel's commits r7942 and r7943. The titles now read "Linux 2.6.20.1 API
> Headers".
Ah. Very good.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Hmm, it looks like someone removed the old commented entries for bison
> and flex in Ch.5. Oh, that was our work in alphabetical. I guess if we
I had thought that the alphabetical branch didn't even touch chapter 5?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> And IMHO any mention of the old 64-bit CLFS LiveCD should be removed from
> the site.
I believe you have the privileges to do that.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:41:21AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
> > On Monday March 26 2007 01:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
What happened to trimming? I know gmail likes to hide quoted text,
but for the rest of us this is a bit of a pain. ;)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/
Hey All,
Just thought I'd share something with you all in case any of you find it
useful. I've set up a script on my server, to be run via a cron job,
that will automatically build chapter 5 of the LFS book if it finds that
there have been any changes to that section since the last time the
script
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 03:29:30PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The tools will be available here if anyone wants to make use of them:
>
> http://www.jenacon.net/lfs-tools/
Oh, and of course, keep in mind that I'm working out the rough edges.
There's no guarantees of fitnes
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:49:43PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Thanks for the great idea, Jeremy.
No problem. I hope it turns out to be useful. I'll draw up an email in a
while that shows how the server does it - I'd be grateful for any tips or
suggestions.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.or
Hello,
Currently in chapter 6 coreutils we have instructions to append a dummy
user to the /etc/{group,passwd} files so that we can run its test suite
properly. The test suite for bash also calls for an unprivileged user.
See: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1877
Does anyone see a pro
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:41:19PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> Why not to use the nobody user for that tests?
>
> There is recent thread about this same issue started by Robert Connolly:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-March/059171.html
In principle that's fine - I'd rath
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:41:19PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> Why not to use the nobody user for that tests?
>
> There is recent thread about this same issue started by Robert Connolly:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-March/059171.html
Woops. Disregard my last message. O
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:42:29PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Personally, I think adding/deleting the temp users should be
> encapsulated in the specific pages that need them. That was someone
> wants to update or evaluate a specific package on a working systems,
> they have all the instructions
Hello,
I know this was brought up a couple of times, but I'm having trouble
finding all the relevant posts. Is there a reason that chapter 6 still
doesn't have the branch update patch but chapter 5 does?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscrat
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:03:44PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I know this was brought up a couple of times, but I'm having trouble
> finding all the relevant posts. Is there a reason that chapter 6 still
> doesn't have the branch update patch but chapter 5 does?
I re
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:47:57PM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> Chapter 6's Coreutils /bin/su will be overwritten by Shadow's, which isn't a
> big deal, but it's not very elegant. I personally prefer to install Chapter
> 5's /tools/bin/tools-su simply so that packages are not overwriting
> ea
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:03:36PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I deleted spam from lfs-book and blfs-book, both mail and trac tickets,
> this morning. Do we need to make the books ticket system so only
> authorized (vice registered) users can create or modify tickets?
You did? I also deleted a bu
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:05:51 -0500, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I did. There were several in blfs-book and lfs-book that were made
> this morning. They were from a user named 'zlgdgzl' which was the most
> recent registered 'user'. The comments were copied from another
> legiti
Greetings All,
Inspired by an email from Richard Downing, I decided to look into using
greylisting to help fight spam. If you haven't heard of it before see:
http://www.greylisting.org
The basic idea is that whenever a new MTA (one that is not in the
greylisting database) attempts to deliver mail
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Be advised that your first post to a mailing list might be delayed by a
> few minutes. If it takes a considerably long time, or if you receive an
> undeliverable message from your MTA, please let us know at server-admin
> AT linuxfromscratch DOT org so that w
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Yeah, but how hard would it be to add retrying to a spammer's botnet
> software? I'm going to predict that within the next year, if
> greylisting is implemented widely (and I've been hearing about it a lot,
> but I don't know how many servers actually do it), the spammers wi
TheOldFellow wrote:
> I have had two instances where a big server farm insisted on sending
> the retrys from many different IPs. This can confuse some greylisters -
> glst/xmail has a method of handling this, but it needs careful setup.
> The culprit is gmail/googlemail!! I expect the postgrey sy
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> We're sorry about the delays today
There still seems to be a delay to the lists. And FWIW, if you were
monitoring the lists at all the past _week_ or so you would have noticed
that there was a delay on the lists. I only implemented greylisting on
quantum yesterday. Obviousl
501 - 600 of 1449 matches
Mail list logo
