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 information on
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 so I'm not going
to test. But what wo
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 function:
>
> __OPENAT (int fd, const ch
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
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:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~ircd/
>
> But that makes sense since ircd is not in a home directory anymore on
> quantum, but in /srv/ircd. I don't k
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
91 matches
Mail list logo
