t;, it may be worthwhile to reconsider the "somewhat
arbitrary" host requirements, or at least point out that certain distros
may have the tools but they may not be invoked by default.
Joe
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Uns
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> It may be reasonable to include a line or two for RISC (PPC/ARM etc) based
> people that may get different output from compiling that dummy.c code.
>
That's essentially what that Important note at the top of the page, and
its link to Toolchain Technical Not
inked the way
we want it and GNU make second (which is the way DIY does it). The
downside is that it does require second passes during Chapter 5.
Joe
||
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
stumbled quite a bit with LFS and even used an old Pentium machine
as a learning platform. If someone can build LFS in 8-12 hours,
perfectly and in a single session the very first time, it seems to me
that either they're already experts or very lucky and haven't learned
much from t
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage?
Instead of populating /dev why not just bind /dev to $LFS/dev.
mount -o bind /dev $LFS/dev
> Does something we build later on actually require devices in there
> that we haven't yet got available to us?
Archaic wrote:
>If one is to follow the LFS book, one must have devices present prior to
>installing the MBR. That alone is reason to sort out this problem. We
>used mount --bind before. Perhaps it is time to bring it back.
>
>
I agree with that.
> But any and all post-LFS package building is i
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> If a symlink allows us to leave grep in its proper location in the
> alphabet, I don't see a problem with that. We just want to make sure
> that grep's "make install" replaces the symlink rather than overwrite
> the target in /tools.
>
As much as an alphabetical branch mak
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I also noticed that LLH moves things from asm-generic and incorporates
> them into asm-{arch}, so that kinda of throws things off a little.
Just an idea, leave it seperate until the parsing is done then copy|move
the headers from asm-generic to asm-{arch}. This might be a lit
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> You can edit the wiki. Just register and log in.
>
>
> Joe,
Do you want me to put what I have so far into the wiki? I have my
wireless service script at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jciccone/wireless . My intentions are
to put a link to that script and in
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> But you never answered my question, what did you do to get inotify to
> work on a stock LFS system. It is becoming clear to me now, but how
> you're getting inotify to work is still a mystery to me.
>
I figured out why I have it, I have /usr/include/sys/inotify.h provided
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:05 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>
> But the "you don't need HAL thing" with others saying the userspace
> app is dependent on HAL, just has me totally confused at this point.
>
>
A lot of the packages don't *require* build and function, Building
I put this page together with the users and groups from LFS and BLFS.
The only addition I made to this page is a users groups with a gid of
100. Anyone that wants to set something in stone, this would be a good
place to start. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jciccone/users.html
--
http://linuxfro
Robert Connolly wrote:
> What is the status of the new belgarath hardware?
>
> P.S.
> Has a macintosh (or other odder hardware) been considered?
>
Would 5 Macintosh Plus systems be enough? I think they have at least 1Mb
of ram each and a low density floppy.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailma
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> install the raw kernel headers from the 2.6.16 kernel in
>> /tools/glibc-kernheaders and compile glibc against them. For
>> userspace, keep using the 2.6.12 sanitised llc headers. Works for me.
>> It worked well for LFS-6.0. It's a tried and test
Andrejs Spunitis wrote:
> /mnt/src/texinfo-4.8/info/terminal.c:236: undefined reference to `tgoto'
> /mnt/src/texinfo-4.8/info/terminal.c:236: undefined reference to `tputs'
>
Support questions should be directed to the lfs-support list.
The symbols tgoto and tputs are from ncurses. You might want
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> How robust is this? It would seem to work if there are two cdroms, but
> does it generalize to the admittedly unusual case where there are more
> than two? I'm not sure how the drives are recognized. I only have one
> and it is at "/sys/bus/ide/drivers/ide-cdrom/0.0" What do
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> That's cool. What happens if there is a cdrom on hda too?
>
I put my harddrive on hdb and created a cdrom on hda. This has the same
pattern as the last one.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2006-05-14 15:04 /dev/cdrom -> hda
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2006-05-14 15:04 /dev/cdrom0
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Joe,
> I was asking about the situation where I have my hard disk on sda and
> a cdrom on hda AND hdb. It's probably not a smart way to go, but its
> possible.
>
> -- Bruce
>
I set my vm back to normal and it's doing some work now
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Rather than creating a whole new package, why don't you just list what
> you don't like about the current LFS rules? Or has this been done
> before and I missed it?
As far as I know both sets of rules work exactly as they're intended to.
There is nothing wrong with either
As I've been reading this thread I noticed one common theme. control.
The main problem that I think is holding us back is that some people
don't want to give up their control over *their* udev rules.
Yes, The packages are almost identical.
Yes, It would be easy to use cat to create extra rules spe
Archaic wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:03:05PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> I think a svn repo should be added for a common set of udev rules. I
>> will be willing to go through both the lfs rules and the clfs rules,
>> find all of the common rules, and mosh them
I agree with the ideas in this proposal.
The one idea that I'm going back and forth on is whether the
blfs-bootscripts should become part of the base scripts.
>From one side, you'd only need one tarball. How often do the bootscripts
get changed? It would possibly be easier to maintain.
>From the
Chris Staub wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/30/06 11:56 CST:
>>
>> I know I said no more replies. But this is important. Jim, you just
>> made my point for me. If these "consolidated" bootscripts need to be
>> updated, what is the point in consolidating them?
>
Having everything in one repo but releasing the base scripts and the
blfs scripts in 2 separate tarballs sounds good to me.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Cool. Any major differences? Did you guys ever have to deal with the
> legendary "libtool can't handle sysroot" problem? Does the toolchain
> adjustment change drastically?
>
> Don't rush to answer. I'm just a curious cat.
>
> --
> Dan
I've probably done about a dozen bu
While I was waiting for my internet to come back I sat down and wrote
this, Havn't tested it, But the idea is there if you want it.
#!/bin/bash
tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
pushd $tmpdir
# Change the checkouts to file:///
svn co svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/trunk/BOOK
DATE=$(grep '/" \
-e "
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The daily script for generating the book now automatically generates the
> udev and bootscript tarballs. When making a change to either, the
> packages.ent has to be updated manually with the version date and md5sum.
>
> I'd like to automate this further, but I don't know of
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>
>> You can get the date with this command or something similar:
>> svn cat svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/LFS/trunk/BOOK/general.ent | awk
>> '/>
>
> Sure. I'm already doing that. The problem i
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
>
>> This isn't a bug, but the line:
>>
>> sed 's/^XCFLAGS =$/& -fomit-frame-pointer/'
>>
>> can be problematic if a user uses this command to modify other variables,
>> because the -fomit-frame-pointer is appended to the end of the line. Some of
>>
Alex Merry wrote:
>
> But surely the only way anyone would have anything on that line is if
> they'd already been doing something different to the book, in which case
> (especially with the toolchain) they should be acutely aware of what the
> instructions do and the possible implications of any ch
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> p.s.: I haven't actually verified that the LFS patch fixes the issue,
>> since I'm not through with my current build yet. All I know is that the
>> Gentoo patches fix this issue (and have done so for some time now).
>>
>
> Please verify that the existing patch does indeed
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I believe it would work with kernels back to 2.6.15,
2.6.16
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Peter wrote:
> I would use this in place of what is
> in 6.2.3. Mounting Virtual Kernel File Systems.
> I want to take care of the mount error that is
> possible by resetting the build from
> scratch without a reboot because the
> book does not explicitly create pts and shm
> and leaves it up to mo
Someone just signed onto IRC and asked when the build logs are going to
be available. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/6.2/ -
Appears to be empty. I don't normally run test-suites or I'd send you my
logs.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
In 25-lfs.rules there is,
KERNEL=="fb[0-9]*", MODE="0620",GROUP="video"
Shouldn't the mode be 0660?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alex Merry wrote:
> However, some programs use read access. links appears to use read access
> to scroll the screen.
>
>
>
And that is the program that was reported to not work with a regular
user in graphic mode. I told the person to change it to 660 and it
worked after that.
--
http://linuxf
e OPENAT openat needs to be put
in it's own ifndef below the #if !defined OPENAT && !defined
__ASSUME_ATFCTS. See the patch.
The things people do on their time off!
Submitted By: Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006-08-17
Initial Package Version: 2.4
Upstream Status:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
> occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
> as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
> on at all any more within the LFS project.
>
CL
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Glibc I've not upgraded because I was put off by upstream's
> recommendation not to run it in production environments coupled with a
> couple of bugs I've read about on the lfs lists. They've probably
> been fixed by patches, but I've lost track of those! If anyone can
Moshe wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> If you are testing the openat patch,
> please do not forget to change
> the __OPENAT () definition from K&R style:
>
> __OPENAT (fd, file, oflag)
> int fd;
> const char *file;
> int oflag;
>
> to the variadic
Dennis J Perkins wrote:
>
> Maybe replacing sysvinit with runit (?) or something similar for faster
> booting? Might be better as a hint or BLFS, altho I would prefer having
> a choice of packages when sysvinit is installed. That would probably
> cause problems with the bootscripts tho.
>
>
Ta
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> He and Ryan are proposing the Open Publication License,
> http://www.opencontent.org/openpub, for all the books. I've looked at
> it and it seems to meet the standards of having a recognized license and
> protecting the books. If it is the community's decision, I have no
> pr
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:05:08PM +0200, Thomas Trepl wrote:
>
>>> ... Next major change will be the kernel headers.
>>> That's another discussion, though.
>>>
>> I think we should start it! IMHO the -rc7 is what we can expect in 2.6.18.
>> With the -rc7, I actually
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:13:27PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> I tested the in kernel headers on mips/alpha/sparc. There were a lot of
>> problems. silo and aboot didn't want to build right. The build had so
>> many errors in it, on all 3 of
LFS Trac wrote:
> #1882: 3.2 All Packages, "Do not use version 2.6.17 or later kernels ..."
>
> Thanks. That's a holdover from LFS-6.2. I'll change that.
>
I can't say I've ever seen serious incompatibilities in between kernel
versions with bootscripts. "Potentional incompatibilities with the
b
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> What kind of incompatibilities are we talking about? udev?
>>
>
> IIRC, yes -- I think we started doing that when some kernel changed the
> layout of /sys. More recently, there's a kernel version floating a
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 8/13/06, Christoph Feikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> First I like to thank everyone involved for the excellent work on LFS
>> and BLFS!
>>
>> I'd like to suggest a little modification of "/etc/rc.d/init.d/gpm" from
>> "blfs-bootscripts-20060624.tar.bz2":
>
Trying to search the mailing lists resulted in a very large and bold,
"Access Denied!"
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>> Declan Naughton wrote:
>>
irc has not been installed on the new server yet. Its another
opportunity for me to learn something new. :(
>>> Why don't we just use Freenode? There is an established #lfs channel
>>> there. D
Barius Drubeck wrote:
> On Monday 29 January 2007 05:49, Marty _ wrote:
>
>> dont suppose anyone knows the general needed commands/utils for a
>> successful login?
>> i.e. i have '(hostname) login:'
>> i type root
>> waits 20-30 seconds
>> and repeats.
>>
>> sulogin works inside the bootscripts.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
> about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
> the contrib/ directory in the bootscripts repo (basically, by making
> them LSB compliant, you make them easy to run in parallel).
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>
> I guess I still don't understand the need for this. I just did a test
> on my laptop and it took 18 seconds from the time I pushed enter from
> grub to a login prompt. This included udev, dbus, hal, sshd, nfsd, but
> not X, ntp, or bringing up my wifi card.
>
>
>
14 is
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>
> That's part of what DJ's contrib/ LSB scripts help with. Instead of
> printing "starting X...", then later printing either "OK" or "FAILED",
> the LSB interface basically forces you to build the whole line in a
> string, and then echo it all at once. This helps parallel
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
I found dead Link(s) in the Documentation:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/nano.html
The Link to this Page is dead:
ftp://ftp.uni-koeln.de/editor/nano-2.0.1.tar.gz
Thanks
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachri
but in /srv/ircd. I don't know if any extra setup is needed
> in ircd or httpd.conf, but at least /srv/ircd has too restrictive
> permissions for this to happen.
>
> I CC'd Joe since I'm pretty sure he has some experience here and may
> have set up the old logging sys
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I'm sitting on the fence here. On one hand, I like the idea of
> individual indexes for packages/libraries/programs/etc. because
> of the reduced sizes and faster loading times. But on the other
> hand I don't want to have to open up multiple indexes to find
> what I'm loo
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Thanks Bryan. That is a very interesting result. It's only one data
> point, but it tends to confirm other reports that I have seen that 64
> bit processing isn't significantly faster for most tasks.
>
> If you are running a server with > 4G Ram and very large data sets (i.
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Saturday 07 April 2007 18:03, 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?
>>
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> A while back, the Fedora util-linux maintainer decided to fork
> util-linux since upstream was basically dead and not accepting patches
> back. So, here is util-linux-ng:
>
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~kzak/util-linux-ng/
>
> It's very active, AFAICT. The first 2.13 release c
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Yeah, I saw this too. It's not the most popular of changes though (see
> http://www.mail-archive.com/util-linux-ng%40vger.kernel.org/msg00350.html and
> David Miller's reply). So, we might see a package agnostic filesystem
> detection library, possibly even before ut
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> A few people have already expressed the fact that platforms like x86_64
> are becoming more and more standard. We simply have to keep up with the
> times. Adopting some/all of CLFS' methods into mainstream LFS will
> happen sooner or later.
>
> Back in the day, LFS' chapt
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:59:31PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> LFS could be made to accommodate x86_64 (multilib) with very few changes
>> and a bunch of new pages. Where multilib gets tricky is where lfs stops
>> and blfs begins. With
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:29:20PM -0600, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the rendered book:
>>> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-x86_64
>>>
>>>
>> You have correctly dropped grub from the l
Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> "all those nice 64 binary packages" - I suppose that means nvidia
> or ati kernel modules ? I don't know of anything else that comes as
> 64-bit without source.
>
>
I know a few people use Opera too. I personally use a binary JDK if I
need java. If someone wanted to use
Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>>
>>
> I'll give you java, so I have to accept there are binary 64-bit
> applications. But I can't find any 64-bit binaries for firefox or
> opera.
>
>
>
I could have sworn they existed but I just checked and couldn't find
them either. So strike two more off the list
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Luca wrote:
>
>> Grub-0.9x is old Grub legacy and no-more maintained.
>>
>
> According to their site, it is maintained, just no new features are
> being added. (Though I'm not sure what sense of the word "maint
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/25/07 19:21 CST:
>
>
>> Where is the `eject' program located? It is not in BLFS; at least it is
>> not in the index.
>>
>
> It is not in BLFS. It is referenced a couple of times in the book as
> an optional component. It is truly
IRC is still out.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IRC is still out.
>>
>
> How about now?
>
It's back now.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
There's gotta be something wrong with the ircd init script. It's still down
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 9/30/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There's gotta be something wrong with the ircd init script. It's still down
>>
>
> It just wasn't setup in rc*.d. Should be fixed now.
>
Thanks.
--
http://l
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 10/12/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:30:11AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>> What does that have to do with sparc64? You're the only person I know
>>> that has one, so that means development and support is 100% you
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>
>> and now your trying to get it in the mainline. To quote yourself your
>> not a "hardcore developer", but your trying to influence the direction
>> of LFS to meet your needs.
>>
>
> Oh, lol. You're taking Justin's words and applying them to
Thomas Pegg wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Julio Meca Hansen wrote:
>>
>
>
>> I've lost the background on this. Looking at util-linux, why do we need
>> it at all in Chapter 5? Can't we just build it once in Chapter 6 just
>> before the first file that needs it?
>>
>>
> From wh
Julio Meca Hansen wrote:
> As the wiki states, either e2fsprogs or udev needs to be installed in
> chapter 5 if we're going to include the util-linux-ng package.
>
> After analysing the matter a bit, I've been testing with the
> installation of e2fsprogs in chapter 5, this set of commands:
>
> mkdi
Julio Meca Hansen wrote:
> I saw in CLFS e2fsprogs is included so basically I kind-of copied the
> installation instructions, but I suppose even if we don't need more than
> liduuid, it won't do any harm to install the other associated libraries
>
Nope, not at all, just stating that libuuid or l
What happened to pastebin.linuxfromscratch.org?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 3:16 PM, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:51:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> Circul wrote:
>>>
>>>
Try to compile glibc-2.6.1 - no errors, all compiled fine.
What's wrong ?
I'm just curious what the code looks like. It looks a LOT like a parser
I wrote working on a project with Jeremy almost a year ago. Link below.
Obviously the concept is the same. If it is the same base code, all I
ask is for attribution of the original idea, No more.
http://cross-lfs.org/~jciccone
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> I'm just curious what the code looks like. It looks a LOT like a parser
>> I wrote working on a project with Jeremy almost a year ago. Link below.
>> Obviously the concept is the same. If it is the same base code, al
isn't stable. I
do not know if the world is ready for a stable release with gcc-4.0.2
but, a few upgrades are required.
Joe Ciccone
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
oup conflict
> reported in bug 1639.
5) Upgrade binutils to 2.16.1 if possible to incorperate gcc4 hosts.
An alternative would be to put a note in the book saying that if your
host uses gcc4 please install gcc pass1 then binutils pass1 then gcc pass1.
Joe Ciccone
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://linux
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>
>I just wanted to report on the status of the alphabetical branch as it
>currently stands. For all intents and purposes, I believe it produces a
>stable environment. I have built many, many packages on top of it and
>it's working wonderfully. I have built my usua
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/11/05 19:43 CST:
>
>
>
>>The real thrust behind this research is to have a rationale for each
>>package -- *why* it's built *when* it's built. IMO, that's 10 times
>>better than just saying 'eh, the build order is a huge mess, we don
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>In BLFS, we do spend a lot of time determining dependencies, but we also
>make the assumption that the LFS packages are installed. The LFS
>dependencies are not listed for each package.
>
>
>
If the packages were to be listed, and have all the deps mapped out in a
tree, you
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm seeing a reproduceable issue with the current texinfo/teTeX
>>combination of LFS/BLFS packages. I don't know where to begin to
>>look so I'll describe symptoms and see if this rings a bell to
>>anyone.
>>
>>I see segmentation fault
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>I thought this POSIX behavior was reverted in the current coreutils, but
>apparently not. Do we need to add a patch?
>
>
from the info coreutils tail page:
Some older `tail' implementations also support an
obsolete option `+COUNT' with the same meaning as `-+COUNT'. POSIX
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> (I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to figure why we
>
>weren't supposed to drink.)
>
The Y2K hoax! and Merry Christmas to everyone.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above infor
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>2) Keep our existing website, but use Trac for a development wiki and to
>replace Bugzilla and ViewCVS. The wiki pages would only include
>development works in progress, not the main website pages, similar to
>how our previous wiki was set up.
>
>3) Keep everything as is, i
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>1. Replace Bugzilla
>2. Replace ViewCVS
>3. Be a target for multilib/i18n issues.
>
>I do not think is should replace the general website. I'd prefer to
>keep those pages static and archived in svn.
>
>
I would opt to keep everything entact until everyone has agreed that
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>Offer suggestions, please, on what you think would be a fair trial. I'm
>sorry that my excitement about it carries me along sometimes. :)
>
>
>
Give it a run for its money, let the people that are going to use it,
use it, and see how it works under a load with people usi
After doing some research on my own. I personaly would like to build
without UTF-8 support because of the following problems that have been
mentioned.
1. Man isn't UTF-8 ready yet, but support is planned.
Man-DB seems like overkill for this application.
2. Groff isn't UTF-8 ready yet, but su
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>Well ASCII is technically 7 bits, but most systems recognize Latin1
>which is 8 bits.
>
>
I don't know why I said 4 bits, You are right.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information p
Jörg W Mittag wrote:
>
> - many major distributions include their own copies of sanitized
> headers.
>
>
>
Many distros use patched 2.4 headers, Fedora is one example, but
probably a bad one because they break all the rules anyway.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FA
I can tell you that the problem is in main.css in the #logo section,
but, I have no clue how to fix it, I know that when I changed position:
relative; to position: static; it showed up properly, but then the
positioning was off.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://w
95 matches
Mail list logo
