On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 00:20 +, Greg Schafer wrote:
> (Sidenote: Any plans for LFS to incorporate parallel make into the build?
> Seems like a gaping omission in this day and age of commonplace multicore
> cpu's. At the very minimum, Glibc, GCC and Binutils should be given the
> option of `ma
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 14:56 -0700, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Nathan Coulson wrote:
> >> I noted that the linux kernel is working on a system called devtmpfs.
> >>>From what I have read, it mount's a tmpfs, then populates it (Giving
> >> us con
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 09:42 -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Soon we'll have to figure out how we want to move forward with
> linux-libc-headers. Do we start our own, or do we wait for other
> projects to take this on.
I believe the Red Hat kernel maintainer submitted a patch adding another
make
Hi,
I just read chapter 8.3.1 which states:
It is important to note that the files in the kernel source
directory are not owned by root. Whenever a package is unpacked
as user root (like we did inside chroot), the files have the
user and group IDs of whatever they
On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 12:27 +0200, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
[snip]
> This is a pretty serious flaw if people aren't aware of it, so I think
> it needs to be mentioned.
Oh, and it could be recommended to use the --no-same-owner
--no-same-permissions arguments for tar, in case peop
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 07:31 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/18/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > -install -dv -m 1777 /tmp /var/tmp
> > > +install -dv -m 1777 {/var,}/tmp
> >
> > This syntax looks wrong to me. Seems it would create a /var/tmp
> > dir but not /tmp.
>
> It's
As the udev team is becoming better at providing default rules, I'm
wondering if some of the pain in terms of (as well as errors associated
with) maintaining a complete set of rules externally could be avoided.
Attached is a diff between the LFS 20060920 rules and the rules.d
directory from the ud
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> ("---" = upstream, "+++" = LFS)
> > # sysfs is populated after the event is sent
> > -ACTION=="add", DEVPATH=="/devices/*", ENV{PHYSDEVBUS}==&
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 17:48 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> >> ("---" = upstream, "+++" = LFS)
> >>
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 07:24 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What I want to accomplish here is to always be able to grab the latest
> > udev tarball and expect it to work, without having to wait weeks for
>
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 11:50 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> > KERNEL=="fb[0-9]*", MODE="0620", GROUP="video"
> >
> That's a bug. Must be 0660, because there is no such thing as
> "write-only mmap" in Linux.
Another locally added bug in the udev rules :(
I sort of
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:03 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > Iwouldn't it make sense to take the 50-udev-default.rules from the
> > suse directory (since they're well maintained) and the rest from the
> > udev directory, and patch as neede
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:03 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >
> > > Now maybe it's no more work to merge our patchset "forward" i
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 00:50 +0200, Barius Drubeck wrote:
> On Sunday 15 October 2006 00:27, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > most LFS-people like the fact that it's pretty distro neutral and
> > that you use mostly vanilla software.
> Indeed. So I puzzled how does that strengthen
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:59 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > >
> > > Why don't you supply a diff of the shipped udev rules vs. udev-config
&
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 08:02 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 5/14/07, Jens Stroebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've been trying for some time now to get the shadow-4.0.18.1 source
> > from ftp://ftp.pld.org.pl/software/shadow/shadow-4.0.18.1.tar.bz2 ;
> > the site is not resolvable, though.
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:35 +, Reece Dunn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the sections on building the Linux headers from the kernel sources,
> the build instructions are (for section 6):
>
> make mrproper
> make headers_check
> make INSTALL_HDR_PATH=dest headers_install
> cp -rv dest/in
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 18:41 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> > I think we've given plenty of time for any users of the `tempfile'
> > binary to have been updated now, so any remaining users should be
> > patched to use `mktemp'.
>
> That's my first thought as well, but I don't know for sure how many
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:46 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Feldmeier Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello guys,
> >
> > I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system.
> > But is there a problem if I use
> > the latest kernel version ?
> >
> > Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version
> > a
Matt Darcy wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > And I run a dovecot IMAP server without inotify-support on a
> > inotify-enabled Linux 2.6.14 machine because it couldn't find
> >
>
> And what is your experience with this ?
>
> Do you find that inotify wor
Hi there,
Not knowing anything about the development of LFS (and in the hopes of
not having to) I would like to suggest two (faily big) package
management systems to be mentioned on the FAQ:
- pacman from Arch Linux
It does dependency tracking, supports (optionally remote) package
repositori
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
>
> > On a side note: Another headline for "Why isn't some package
> > manager in the book?" would be appreciated.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/introduction/important.html#pkgmgt
Yes. This
22 matches
Mail list logo
