In the Chapter 5 instructions of Gawk, it says this:
"This bug leads to, e.g., Gettext testsuite failures."
There really is no reason to put the ", e.g., " in that sentence.
It should be removed. If it leads to failures, then specify it, we
shouldn't be beating around the bush with "for example".
Hi all,
There are *many* redundancies in the section where the directory
tree is created. I started going through it, and came up with an
entirely different set of commands that accomplish the same thing
in 14 lines (one is a tad bit longer) than what is currently in
the book that takes 19 lines.
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 03/21/06 19:23 CST:
> IMO, it needs to be in _one_ of the books. BLFS software, at least at
> one time, required various symlinks. Other software beyond BLFS I know
> still requires /dev/dvd.
Some may require the links (but in my opinion that makes it poorly
writ
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/21/06 19:49 CST:
> It would also be nice for software to have configuration files where you
> could specify the devices as needed e.g. xorg.conf.
You guys are just being too cool for the chances to be putting
in the shameless plugs. From the configuration file
Hi all,
In the GCC-4.0.3 Chapter 6 instructions it tells you to repeat the
sanity checks done earlier in the Toolchain Adjustment section.
The toolchain adjustment sanity checks have changed recently, and
though they pass with exactly what the book says in the toolchain
adjustment, during GCC the
Hi all,
The Man-DB instructions don't mention a test suite at all. This
seems out of the ordinary as I'm used to seeing either a note to
run the tests, or that there are no tests.
Perhaps this was overlooked when the Man-DB page was put in.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 2004122
Hi all,
Noted in the book that the Groff package creates a zsoelim file
in /usr/bin (which is a symlink), and is described in the "installed
programs" section.
A little bit later, Man-DB comes along and trumps this file with
another, and it is not reflected in the "installed programs". Could
this
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/22/06 16:18 CST:
> The Man-DB instructions don't mention a test suite at all. This
> seems out of the ordinary as I'm used to seeing either a note to
> run the tests, or that there are no tests.
I forgot to mention this yesterday. Though
Chris Staub wrote these words on 03/21/06 21:25 CST:
> Have you looked at the LFS Trac ticket on this subject?
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1656
I had forgotten that Gerard opened this ticket after I initially
said something about it on list. Thanks for the reminder.
--
Randy
Hi all,
I noticed that the hotplug bootscript is no longer in the bootscripts,
yet nothing has changed with the hotplug-udev setup in SVN for several
months (hotplug is still a package in LFS-SVN).
Does this mean that the hotplug bootscript was never needed? Or that
it is needed for the current S
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/24/06 15:15 CST:
> Does this mean that the hotplug bootscript was never needed? Or that
> it is needed for the current SVN setup, yet it was inadvertently
> pulled out of the bootscript version Archaic updated to the other
> day?
One other no
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 03/24/06 15:39 CST:
> It's only been removed from the Makefile in the udev_update branch of
> the bootscripts. That branch no longer has the hotplug package
> installed, and uses udev for all hotplugging functionality.
Thanks, Matt. Somehow I overlooked the
Dan Winkler wrote these words on 03/28/06 20:37 CST:
Any plans on including this package into the BLFS
Yes.
as well as maybe
ndiswrapper?
Can't promise that. :-)
with perhaps a relevant startup script to be merged into the BLFS
bootscripts package.
If it is warranted and can be used
Hi all,
SSH (port 22) seems to be broken on Belgarath. Note these tests on my
private network and Anduin:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/BLFS/BOOK > telnet rmlinux.mcmurchy.prv 22
Trying 192.168.0.222...
Connected to rmlinux.mcmurchy.prv.
Escape character is '^]'.
SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_4.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 22:07 -0600, Archaic wrote:
> And building against 4.3 is a viable method of testing.
Using Anduin where DB-4.3.x is installed, the Subversion-1.3.0 tests
all ran fine. No problems. Here is what I've found in the last 20
minutes.
1. The test completes fine using BDB-4.3.x.
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 00:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Are there any changes to the build instructions between BDB 4.3.x and
> 4.4.x?
I believe the 4.3 instructions used a couple of flags being passed
to fix and issue with building the shared libraries, and 4.4 does
not need them. I don't really
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 18:05 +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Do we have any clues about when svn 1.3.1 will be released?
>
> Imminently.
Cool. Thanks for the heads-up, Matt. This makes a decision easy on
what to do. Subversion-1.3.1 it shall be.
--
Randy
rmlinux: [bogom
Hi all,
Is there any real reason why the Makefiles in the BLFS and LFS dev
book need to reference image directories that are different? In my
opinion, both books are wrong how they do it.
BLFS points to an image directory in its own source tree. Never
updated, or at least it would require manual
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 20:53 -0600, Archaic wrote:
> I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, but have a few questions:
My apologies for not answering them sooner.
> 1) What base system is being targetted?
>a) If 6.1.1, then what about the gcc4-specific stuff?
>b) If 6.1.1, how much
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 13:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Thanks Dan. It is interesting, but I'm not sure where to go with this
> right now.
Can of worms!
Not sure what do about this HAL/D-Bus thing. Best I can tell GNOME
2.14.0 wants the bleeding edge HAL/D-Bus. Gnome-VFS wants HAL-0.5.7.
This i
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 20:31 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> It's abit off topic: I have a working LFS and part of BLFS on my laptop,
> which
> is an AMD64. I had to use patches, which aren't mentioned in the BLFS book or
> wiki. Can I just register for Trac and add these notes to the packages?
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 12:00 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> That's a good question that needs to be pursued. I don't follow KDE
> at all, so I wouldn't know where to look for this info. Do you know
> which KDE applications use HAL?
Well, there are only two packages to get KDE up and running (plus
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:04 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Overall, I am not that eager to do a BLFS 6.1.1 any more. I think LFS
> 6.2 will be in the testing phase relatively soon and running it against
> BLFS is one of the big tests. Releasing a new BLFS release, as you
> know, is a huge amount of
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 21:26 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> It's only an optional dependency. Gnome-VFS and Gnome-2.14 works fine
> without HAL or D-Bus. I plug in some flash memory and it automatically
> mounts it as /dev/sda1 on /mnt/mp3. Some problem with HAL or D-Bus is no
> reason not to us
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 22:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Probably inotify. From the gnome-vfs buildlog
> Gnome VFS configuration summary:
>
> IPv6 support:yes
> SSL support: yes
> Avahi support: no
> Howl supp
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:40 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> In that case, I'm guessing fam (gamin) is providing the notification.
This is a good discussion, I am going to learn something here. It was
my understanding that the File Alteration Monitor is used to tell the
operating system when there a
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 23:09 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Exactly right. It's worked for more than a year, it worked with FAM and
> it works with Gamin. If Gnome VFS can now use inotify directly it makes
> me wonder if Gamin is still needed.
Cool.
But you never answered my question, what did y
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 00:14 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> It's the other way round. udev notifies HAL of new devices, older HAL
> versions call fstab-sync to create fstab entries on demand and
> the /etc/fstab change gets noticed by FAM which notifies gnome-vfs.
I understand everything you're say
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:23 -0600, Archaic wrote:
> Add inotify.h and a newer kernel. ;) There are patches for inotify
> support for the llh used in trunk, but I don't recall where.
Sorry to be so lame in my knowledge about this stuff, but where does
one get inotify.h? And exactly what version of
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 00:35 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> I thought he just didn't compile gnome-vfs with HAL support, that's
> indeed not necessary for automounting. As previously written,
> gnome-volume-manager is the gnome automounter, not gnome-vfs, and
> gnome-volume-manager has an unconditio
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 15:39 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I believe inotify got into the released version of the kernel in
> 2.6.13. So, you could get the header from there.
FWIW:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: find /usr/src/linux* -name inotify.h
/usr/src/linux-2.6.14.3/include/linux/inotify.h
/usr/src
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:05 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Andy seems to have left the building, but I recall that he was using
> the header sanitization script when that topic was hot on lfs-dev.
> I'd bet that he's using newer kernel headers.
Seeing how that about 4-5 people have given replies,
Hi all,
I'm wondering why LFS still uses a symlinked xsl-stylesheets-current
target for stylesheets instead of a hard-coded version number. I'm
looking at different versions of the LFS rendering Makefile and they
point to this current symlink.
As we go forward, won't it be difficult to re-render
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/09/06 11:40 CST:
> In BLFS, we created an image/ directory and have the images in SVN.
> That seems like a better way to me. That way the entire book is in SVN
> and is not dependent on any external sources.
My thinking was that those images are part of the st
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/09/06 16:12 CST:
> Thanks. I wasn't sure about the bootscripts version - have there been
> new, specific bootscripts for the udev branch? And if so, are those
> changes going to be merged to trunk at the same time?
I'm not sure how much was changed, but it
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 04/09/06 17:56 CST:
> I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing and both
> teams
> be ready for a release" :)
Probably working a testing branch for a few weeks, then a beta-1
release, perhaps a beta-2 being required after that, then a rele
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/09/06 23:10 CST:
> I just want to state for the record that I think that lumping
> glibc-2.4 in just because we're trying to make a release is a bad
> idea. Glibc affects practically (probably) every single package in
> the system. This is not on the same sc
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/09/06 17:59 CST:
> Just about complete with the changes to add the usernotes.
Done. Also changed the square brackets to angle brackets in all the
tags (LFS is changing this as well).
Bruce, if there is anything more, holler. Changelog says it all, bu
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/10/06 14:09 CST:
> BTW, right now the admins are working on a way to restart ssh if it gets
> killed again.
Does it require reboot, or just starting a daemon?
Are there processes that must be killed before the SSH daemon will
start again?
Why I ask is because
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:46 -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:28:48PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, the kernel headers were unpacked into
> > > /tools/glibc-headers before glibc in chapter 5, and glibc used
> > > --with-headers=/tools/gl
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 04/10/06 15:19 CST:
> It was good enough for LFS-6
> http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/6.0/LFS-BOOK-6.0-HTML/chapter05/kernel-headers.html
>
>
> In chapter 6 glibc was configured --with-headers=/tools/glibc-kernheaders
Thanks for the research An
LFS Trac wrote these words on 04/12/06 19:07 CST:
> #1657: Chapter 5 Stripping Notes -- need updating to reflect current numbers
>
> Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> From my tests, a little over 6 MB is saved from stripping and 19 MB from
> removing info/man/doc files.
Wow. I see 120mb of cl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these words on 04/13/06 12:42 CST:
> + Also, if you would prefer to skip Berkeley DB entirely
> + and use GDBM instead, see the BLFS instructions located at
> +
Just an FYI, but this has a *very* negative effect on BLFS where we
assume that BDB is installed
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/13/06 13:01 CST:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:48:23PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Shouldn't this have been discussed first?
>
> It was discussed - on the same list where you spotted the commit.
Things pertaining to the development
Archaic wrote these words on 04/13/06 13:02 CST:
> And just my 2 cents:
>
> 1) GDBM is perfectly valid (and maybe preferred?) for this purpose,
This may be true, however, the community determined via discussion
that BDB would be what was installed in the LFS book. The new
phrasing effectively ma
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:37 CST:
> Should we just close ticket 1644 as wontfix?
>
> Randy?
Give me until tomorrow to look at this. The issue is that many of
the Perl Modules referenced are not available any longer (from CPAN)
and can only be retrieved via our BLFS package ser
George Boudreau wrote these words on 04/13/06 18:42 CST:
>It is fast enough for me and does a full LFS build in well under 2
> hours and can render a book in minutes.
I have a 500mhz p3 that every hour looks to see if there are updates
to the BLFS and LFS books. If so, it renders. LFS SVN re
Archaic wrote these words on 04/15/06 19:40 CST:
> If the full /opt heirarchy just has to be kept, it can easily be
> compressed to one line.
>
With all due respect, there are many examples that far exceed the
brevity of your example in the bug about this. And FWIW, I agree
completely about the
William Zhou wrote these words on 04/15/06 20:16 CST:
> In LFS, the user is root:root and the umask is defined as 022.
> Everything is
> ready. IMHO, using install is unnecessary for a directory set up.
A2D. The install command should be used to show the proper way
to do things and not rely on t
Archaic wrote these words on 04/15/06 20:21 CST:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 08:03:39PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> And, BTW, mkdir -p is wrong. The install command with a -mXXX
>> parameter is a much, much better example of how to do things
>> correctly.
>
> You
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 04/24/06 14:40 CST:
> Disk usage is made in to steeps, a first "du -skx $LFS" before to unpack the
> package, and a second "du -skx $LFS" before to delete the sources and build
> dirs (excluding in both cases the jhalfs dir to not measure build log files).
So
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/24/06 15:03 CST:
> On 4/24/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Approximate build time: 8 SBU
>
> I get 9.2 SBU for gcc-pass1. I didn't measure disk usage with those.
And I'm smack dab in the middle between y'all.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Logs/L
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/06 15:17 CST:
> And I'm smack dab in the middle between y'all.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Logs/LFS_Tools/gcc-4.0.2-Pass1 > cat sbu.time
> 8.64 SBU
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Logs/LFS_Tools/gcc-4.0.2-Pass1 > cat
Joshua Murphy wrote these words on 04/24/06 15:24 CST:
> theoretically, be
> within 3-4 of each other (between systems) at the worst.
In my opinion, it is much closer than that. Consistently. I'm at
less than 1 SBU difference between an Athlon 2400+ with 768mb RAM
and a 500mhz P3 with only 256mb
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 04/24/06 15:32 CST:
> Not so badly. From your other post I think that the hardware used to do the
> builds has a bigger impact in the final values than the unpack of that small
> packages ;-)
Good point. But I tend to think BLFS.
Now do the same thing for the
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/22/06 12:45 CST:
> We have GCC-3.3.6 in the book. This would probably be adequate, but
> I'm wondering if we shouldn't add GCC-3.4.6 to the book,
I just couldn't get excited about adding another version of GCC to
the book. Instead, wh
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/24/06 15:30 CST:
> On 4/24/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And on my doggy 500mhz P3, just recently built (20060322):
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build/Logs/LFS_Tools/gcc-4.0.3-Pass1 > cat sbu.time
>> 9.38
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/25/06 10:15 CST:
> Maybe, but it depends on lots of other things, too. What services are
> you running, what optimization settings, etc.
Are you sure about that?
I display bogomips and it never changes, regardless what services I
may be running. I don't kno
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 04/25/06 12:17 CST:
> FYI, I think how this is handled in KDE is mostly through a module
> called kded_mediamanager. The source seems to use HAL as well as poll
> fstab. All of this stuff is in kdebase/kioslave/media. There's also
> a module called kded_median
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/30/06 18:48 CST:
> That always kind of bugged me - that in the middle of the flow you have
> to go *back* in the book and repeat some instructions.
You must do this in two other spots in the book and it has always
bugged me as well. I remember not too long
Kevin Buckley wrote these words on 05/01/06 07:33 CST:
> a general discussion about users and groups in BLFS that educates
> folk as to why they MIGHT need some users and groups "Beyond" what
> LFS has provided
I can see this added to the page on users and groups, but not a
complete discuss
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/03/06 20:36 CST:
> I've never seen a ticket assigned to me to answer questions. After all
> that's why we have the ticket system in place.
You mean you've been monitoring the lists and because nobody assigned
you a ticket, you haven't contributed to any thread
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/07/06 12:02 CST:
> 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?
Knowing this is jumping the gun just a bit, but I've got a couple of
questions concerning the 6.2 testing bran
Hi all,
I've noticed that the configuration of the X Window System packages
has been moved to a new section titled "X Window System Components".
Why was it done this way? This makes the X Window System packages
completely different than all the other packages in the book. Nowhere
else in the book
Hi all,
My apologies if this has been discussed, or mentioned, and I've
overlooked it. But because it has to do with a "serious security
vulnerability", it can't be that bad to mention it in case it is
an issue.
My understanding is that the code base for the Xorg-7 and Xorg-6.9.0
is the same. If
[originally sent to lfs-dev by mistake]
Hi all,
My apologies if this has been discussed, or mentioned, and I've
overlooked it. But because it has to do with a "serious security
vulnerability", it can't be that bad to mention it in case it is
an issue.
My understanding is that the code base for t
Sorry, wrong list. :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
18:17:00 up 45 days, 5:54, 3 users, load average: 2.43, 2.08, 1.41
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ
Hi all,
Is it because of the new man program, or the build order that some
of the man pages are not being formatted properly? I don't really
understand what is going on, but for example, try to 'man diff' on
a newly built system.
It has to do with a help2man program not being installed. What is
w
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 05/18/06 16:56 CST:
> But, my lfs system is old (25th March)
It is very cool that our community base considers a build of less
than 2 months ago, an "old" system.
To many, it would be bleeding edge. :-)
To very many! I remember that someone (an {B}LFS editor) acc
Dale & Yvonne Ogilvie wrote these words on 05/19/06 20:44 CST:
> 1. I found it a bit confusing as to what user I should be logged in as when.
> One approach I have seen on Suse is to use a different background for root
> access. superuser terminals have a different color, superuser login has a
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/22/06 08:52 CST:
> I think I understand your concern here. A note in BLFS saying that
> multibyte locale support in LFS/BLFS is new and not fully tested for
> each package, along with the reminder to check the wiki for user notes
> should suffice don't yo
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/23/06 10:36 CST:
> libXvMC to be specific. According to my dependencies, it's also used
> by the i810 video driver and Xine-Lib.
No, no, no. What I am speaking of is the *wrapper* library for the
library you mention above. They are different. It is libXvMCW.
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/23/06 10:50 CST:
> Right. I forgot about that. It is installed by the package libXvMC,
> though.
Well I don't know anything about that. I've always installed it using
the libXvMCW package. You and I are not on the same page here. The
library you consistentl
Archaic wrote these words on 05/23/06 11:00 CST:
> One of the reasons for keeping Xfree was because it was nearly
> maintenance free. The package itself may be, but obviously anything that
> uses X components requires a lot of hassle only because of Xfree. Does
> any editor here use Xfree?
"A lot
Archaic wrote these words on 05/23/06 11:19 CST:
> 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.
Though we probably shouldn't continue this banter as it isn't leading
to anything prod
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/06 15:41 CST:
> Is this acceptable to all.
No. One person should not have final say on anything except an overall
project leader. For example, the entire BLFS Editing staff should have
write privileges to whatever repo will be used to create the
'production'
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/06 15:51 CST:
> Randy,
> We would have our own branches, and DJ, Alex, and Dan would control
> the releases and what is in trunk. If a release is needed, the dev teams
> would contact them with the reason for the release and they would take
> care of it
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/23/06 16:07 CST:
What everyone wants is a unified package, where all the scripts for
BLFS, CLFS, and LFS are in one package. We will need to become dependent
on the this team that will be handling this package. We can have them
release a nightly tarball i
Archaic wrote these words on 05/23/06 19:46 CST:
> But what about all the other changes? We need to discuss all differences
> and sort out which way to go every step of the way if we are going to
> produce something both books can use.
So, start the ball rolling.
As a totally neutral party to th
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/24/06 00:19 CST:
> Just let us know who you want to have full access, and those he only
> need access to branches/lfs or branches/clfs. I can work offline with
> you on this.
Jim, you sure went to a lot of work without even getting approval
from the Project L
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 05/26/06 20:03 CST:
> So, there are my thoughts. :-)
And some mighty-fine ones, at that.
I'm fairly certain that BLFS bootscripts will never be merged, unless
the entire team has privvy to update, and that the bootscript tarball
is auto-generated.
Of course, we'll
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 05/27/06 04:01 CST:
> Actually, running jhalfs on both the original book and the translated book
> and
> diffing the output is the best way to be sure that the commands and
> packages/patches versions in both books are identical.
You may want to see if the sgm
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 05/27/06 08:39 CST:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>> [snip plan to keep things as they are, per Matt's suggestion]
>
> +1
So this means that 4 editors within the project (and I'd a coke
that it would be 5 if Bruce weren't on vacation and offered an
opinion) thinking
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 05/27/06 19:48 CST:
> Could stand with a bit of modification so it outputs to both the screen
> as well as the log file. As it is, there is no output on the screen at
> all, which is so unlike any other make and make check run from the book.
I'll agree that
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 08:59 CST:
> I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
>
> Please vote.
You cannot expect to get realistic or meaningful responses until you
determine and specify:
1. What role does this team take?
2. What are they responsible
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 09:47 CST:
> Hal -> boot-procces -> udev -> kernel.
>
> Are you happy with this answer?
No. I'm more confused than before. You've thrown another thing (HAL)
into the mix. And the order above makes absolutely no sense to me.
(not that it is nonsensic
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:15 CST:
> The total absence of CLFS issues in BLFS.
You are flat wrong here. It has been explained why BLFS cannot
support CLFS issues in the book.
To say this as a negative, and something that needs to be fixed,
is way out of line.
--
Randy
rm
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:29 CST:
> Then saw me the link to the desired info,
> If you don't,can (you or Bruce) say to the rest of us (which we
> don't know these reasons),why the CLFS issues are not covered by
> BLFS at all?
You can use the search utility as well as I ca
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:47 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> 1. CLFS is for *cross-building*.
>
> No It only cross-builds the equivalent of LFS Chapter 5, the rest of the
> build
> is native. CLFS cannot build a system for i586 from i686 host wi
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 11:33 CST:
> Then let the CLFS team to contribute to the BLFS BOOK.
> One chapter with 6-8 pages I think there will be enough for the start.
6-8 pages of what?
We're not going to just put in instructions without backup text to
explain the instruction
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/29/06 01:38 CST:
> Judging from the community reactions so far, it seems that is safe to assume
> that
> the community gave positive vote to the new project.
By my count there are 5 that indicated contrary. Most of those
said to leave things they way they
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 05/29/06 11:25 CST:
> What Holy Day?
Please, Richard, be careful here. Lest someone will be truly offended.
In America, this day is revered in memory of friends and family members
that have paid the ultimate sacrifice in time of war.
Some of whom paid that price
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 05/29/06 14:29 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Some of whom paid that price to defend *your* country.
>
> I asked because I didn't know.
I took your message the wrong way. If instead of trying to make a
joke, you had said, "What hol
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 05/30/06 10:42 CST:
> The bootscripts were brought up as well as something this new group
> could take on. The udev problem we're trying to fix is different than
> the bootscript problem so people might have some issues with putting
> both tasks in the same
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/30/06 11:20 CST:
> Nathan is becoming more active again.
And I'm supposed to believe this because you say so, when I haven't
seen Nathan around in ages? :-)
> It's called coordination, when your getting ready to add a new daemon to
> the book contact the te
Hi all,
Changing the thread so that the one topic, BLFS bootscripts, can be
addressed independently from the other, good, ideas (in fact combining
Udev rules may be bad as well).
Scenario:
LFS releases a book, perhaps in print, that says this is the bootscript
tarball for this release. Let's cal
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/30/06 11:49 CST:
> Isn't DJ a part of BLFS, you can't coordinate with your own team mate?
Don't be ridiculous, Jim. My concern is when DJ is in the hospital, or
on vacation, or moves and is without Internet connectivity, or ...
I think you see my point.
-
Bryan Kadzban wrote these words on 05/30/06 11:53 CST:
> if all the bootscript "leads" are unavailable for some
> reason.
You mean "the" bootscript lead, right? :-)
Anyway, I'm not going to clutter the list with any more replies on
my end. I've spoken my concerns.
I'll wait until Bruce gets bac
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/30/06 11:56 CST:
> This could be Release 1.2.3.1, nothing says that CLFS, LFS, and BLFS
> will be using the same releases, but all the same series would be able
> to operate with each other.
I know I said no more replies. But this is important. Jim, you just
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 06/09/06 23:16 CST:
> If you use an UTF-8 based locale, you will be limited in the choice of
> _applications_: you can't use [snip], and,
> until recent BLFS changes, "mkisofs" and "pine",
Why live in the past and mention stuff that doesn't apply any m
101 - 200 of 1031 matches
Mail list logo
