Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/28/05 00:13 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>Anyway, browsing through the books, I noticed that the RaQ2 build
>>instructions include building OpenSSL and OpenSSH. I must have missed
>>this discussion totally, as I don't remember a
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/30/05 11:12 CST:
> Just update the PATH and remove the path from the loadproc arguments.
> Add a comment to the book that the PATH statement needs to be manually
> updated if GNOME_PREFIX is not /opt/gnome-2.10.
The PATH statement has already been updated and c
Daryn Neadow wrote these words on 05/31/05 16:39 CST:
> I experienced the same problem with this SVN version. I worked around it by
> re-adding flex to chapter 5 (why was it removed?). Then you can compile the
> patched version in chp6 without error.
If Flex is required to build itself, then it
David Fix wrote these words on 06/01/05 11:45 CST:
> Well, you won't find that "run flex" in your logs unless something "bad"
> happens. :) As it did with me...
>
> Secondly, /working is where I unpack everything to work in (I still keep
> sources in the /sources directory). I just untar everyt
Archaic wrote these words on 06/07/05 23:30 CST:
> Suggestions? Comments? Feedback is requested, please.
Is there any way you can perhaps make a short paragraph of what
you are suggesting? I read your original email earlier today, but
it was simply too much to think about. I got lost.
So, I just
Archaic wrote these words on 06/07/05 23:55 CST:
> Basically rewording nearly an entire page due to the fact that it is
> both hand-holding and confusing at the same time. The reason I call it
> hand-holding is that even a *suggestion* in the book (without any other
> counter-suggestions) will lea
Hi all,
It is my understanding that the full GCC-3.4.x tarballs no longer
include the test suite. This is a separate tarball. Now that the
LFS-6.1-Testing instructions have removed any mention of downloading
or unpacking the test suite tarball, how is anybody that is new to
the project going to kn
Archaic wrote these words on 06/14/05 14:34 CST:
> Can't say for 3.4.4, but 3.4.3 does contain the testsuite.
Thanks for the heads-up. I've got to now go back and slightly reword
the BLFS GCC-3.4.3 instructions.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C L
Hi all,
The bottom paragraph of section 4.6 in LFS-Testing points to the LFS
Wiki for information about failed tests. Is there perhaps an updated
URL that could more directly point to this information? I cannot really
find anything.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (
Hi all,
I'm having trouble validating the Testing branch after r5982.
Seems adding the patch-entities stuff to the bzip2.xml file is causing
problems.
Anyone else?
I use custom validation and rendering scripts, so it may be me.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC
David Jensen wrote these words on 06/15/05 18:08 CST:
> actually I think all the values could be grep'd, cut, adjusted with a
> ratio and sed'd, all in a for loop.
> Anyone up to the script?
Well, there's certainly no rush. This would be for after BLFS-6.1.
And we must wait until we know what ve
Archaic wrote these words on 06/15/05 23:30 CST:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:20:04PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>This is of course, going on Matt and Archaic's recommendation that
>>the SBU factoring doesn't change until after LFS-6.1.
>
> Randy, what is
Archaic wrote these words on 06/15/05 23:57 CST:
> Don't the &&'s take care of you?
[embarrassed]Actually, I don't use them. I run each command
cut-and-paste individually[/embarrassed]
Reason being is that configure won't consider it an error if
a dependency I'm trying to catch isn't found, or
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 06/16/05 11:21 CST:
> My only concern is telling users how to measure. I have always thought
> of the SBU measurements as the time it takes to accomplish the
> procedures in a section of the book, not necessarily the time to build
> the 'package'. If you are not
Archaic wrote these words on 06/16/05 11:59 CST:
> Okay, we really need this sorted.
Let's first decide on how the SBUs will be calculated. It seems
I read Matt is in agreement that configure-make-make install to
build and install the Chapter 5 Pass1 binutils should be used to
calculate.
You and
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 06/16/05 13:15 CST:
> Just for info: Ive been using 2.3.3 for a couple o'weeks.
Then how come it says the mail agent you used to send this mail
is Thunderbird? :-)
> AFAICS 2.3.3 is solid stable, despite the 'said to be'. It doesn't
> compile with gcc-4.0 tho
Hi all,
I've read recently about an impending release of LFS-6.1. I have rendered
the XML sources and looked this version over (Testing). I have most of it
installed in my test build right now.
However, my question is this:
How was/is this version advertised to the community, and more importantl
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 06/25/05 11:19 CST:
> All that is a know issue that should be adderssed ASAP:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-June/051727.html
I apparently overlooked this thread, or have forgotten about it.
Either way, thanks for the link to the recent t
Archaic wrote these words on 06/25/05 11:46 CST:
> First, go to http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org
>
> Then subscribe to website@ and pull this repo:
> svn co svn://linuxfromscratch.org/www2
Is there a timeline for converting to the new website?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 200
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 06/25/05 12:55 CST:
> Sorry, being the one you're speaking about here, I feel a little
> impelled so say something on this note. I agree with your point about my
> time and efforts being stretched, and would definitely appreciate more
> hands for the work. H
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 06/25/05 13:43 CST:
> Did you see my other message in this thread? I told you what you could
> do to help *now*.
No, I glossed over that. My sincere apologies.
However, seeing how the new site is due for release in 2 weeks or
less, perhaps efforts to improve
David Jensen wrote these words on 07/07/05 08:46 CST:
>>The "which" program should be added as an optional dependency for
>>Fluxbox - it's needed for the "fluxbox-generate_menu" script to work.
>
>
> Added, thanks for the heads-up.
Actually, no dependency should have been added, and it probabl
Hi all,
I noticed the Fontconfig instructions now include installation of
documentation. However, earlier in the instructions we pass
--disable-docs to the configure script.
This seems counter-intuitive and somewhat confusing.
I'm not sure of the newest version of Fontconfig, and if there is
pre
Archaic wrote these words on 07/10/05 17:51 CST:
> After having been a maintainer of the patches repor for quite some time
> now, I am in vehement agreement with Jim that patches that do not appear
> in any book or in any hint should *not* be hosted here.
Why? I did not see anything posted by Jim
Archaic wrote these words on 07/11/05 02:02 CST:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:46:48PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>What's the harm in that?
>
> The fact that the repo is starting to look like a junkyard.
I don't mean this the wrong way, Archaic, so don'
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/12/05 01:59 CST:
> Randy, the problem here is why aren't they sent upstream, is it my job
> to send them upstream.
I'm not sure it is anybody's "job". As I'm quite sure you are aware
Jim, some useful packages don't have a current maintainer, or the
maintainer
Hi all,
I'm rebuilding Flex with the -3 patch as this patch was put into the
final LFS-6.1 very late. My test 6.1 build was using the -2 patch. I
want to check this patched version of Flex with the Doxygen build to
see if the Flex hack is still required.
Upon installation of Flex and looking at t
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/19/05 15:04 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>Upon installation of Flex and looking at the text in the LFS-6.1 book,
>>I noticed there is supposed to be a flex++ program (symlink) installed.
>
> Ouch! Looks like that symlink ha
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/19/05 00:11 CST:
> I would like to propose the following additional defines to xorg (and
> xfree86?).
>
> #define ProjectRoot $PREFIX /* For folks who don't want to install X
> in /usr/X11R6 */
> #define FontDir /usr/share/fonts /* Default dir searched by
Hi Tush,
You wrote:
> FontDir is set to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts and DocDir is set to
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc.
Ahh...
I can see your point. However, my personal preference is that
for packages that install to a personalized location, such as
packages installed in /opt/whatever, I like everythi
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/19/05 17:56 CST:
> I remembered everyone getting upset at me. "Flex is needed for a
> functional system is what I was told."
I don't remember anyone getting upset. I do remember folks providing
arguments why it shouldn't be removed from LFS.
Disagreeing with
Jath Palasubramaniam wrote these words on 07/21/05 18:35 CST:
> I think there is an error in the second-last instruction. It says:
>
> > Some packages expect the C preprocessor to be installed in the /lib
> directory. To support those packages, create this symlink:
> > ln -s ../usr/bin/cpp /li
Henrik S. Hansen wrote these words on 07/22/05 20:12 CST:
> It would be less ambiguous and thus much better if patches had a
> "License" field in the header. I don't think it would be much work,
> either.
This is a good idea. The Hints submission guidelines already mandate
that a "License" field
Hi all,
Noted in the "Installed Programs" section of the 6.1 stable LFS book
Shadow-4.0.9 section is that it says the 'groups' program is installed.
However, we don't install this program because there's a sed command
performed during the installation that inhibits the installation.
I did not ch
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/23/05 18:53 CST:
> Jim, what's the story? One minute you say that Cross-lfs is ready for
> prime time.. then you go and make massive changes like this?
I was going to post almost the exact question. But I'm not ready
to start building new LFS' at the moment so
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 07/22/05 20:28 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>Does this sound like a good plan? DJ?
>
> Looks like we crossed between send/receive times. Sounds good to me.
DJ,
I have got Cracklib-2.8.3 ready to commit. I also finished the patch.
Would you like m
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/23/05 19:38 CST:
> On 7/23/05, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Where is the development happening? I do not see it happening on the LFS
>>lists.
>
> I think the development happens on IRC coz I have not seen any major
> discussion on the lists.
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/24/05 20:44 CST:
> If you discuss things and make decisions on IRC then you are doing
> yourselves and everyone else a dis-service because no "information trail"
> is left for search engines to pick up.
I expressed this same exact concern many, many months ago
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 07/24/05 21:48 CST:
> Making IRC logs available shouldn't be a technical issue. I'm sure the
> software can be told to log a certain channel to a file that's accesible
> via the website. I wonder as to how useful that really ends up being.
Anything would be
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/24/05 01:47 CST:
> It still is, but everyone seems to be interested in the next release of
> LFS 6. So I made a change on my own, which is a positive change for the
> book.
And to think I resigned my BLFS position once, for doing the same
exact thing (making
Hi all,
Just a topic which really doesn't need discussion on this list, however,
one item is worth mention (question to Bruce).
I just updated Anduin with the new CrackLib files. I find it interesting
how much better (and, of course, faster) Gzip compresses text files than
Bzip.
The CrackLib wor
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 07/26/05 16:57 CST:
> For all intents and purposes it might as well be running on Jim's
> private machines while it is being developed and turned into something
> usable that can be integrated with the LFS Book.
>
> When Cross-LFS gets to a point it becomes
Gerard Beekmans wrote these words on 07/26/05 17:33 CST:
[snip good stuff]
> If we want this list to return to what
> it used to be, we first need to brush up on our inter-personal skills.
> The rest will automatically follow.
Well said. And I, as much as anyone, need to follow the above
sugges
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/26/05 19:15 CST:
> However, it's apparent that anti-Greg sentiments are still rife
> within LFS. Hopefully the spirit of cooperation that Matt and I have been
> discussing will help resolve this.
I hope so. You left the LFS project before I arrived. Now, under
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/26/05 22:46 CST:
> Glibc Headers
[snip highly technical and best as I can figure, well-reasoned analysis]
Thanks, Greg. I am interested in hearing from the pro-remove-headers
folks in response to your message.
Hopefully, there will be continued discussion. T
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/27/05 15:23 CST:
> Some time ago, BLFS added the '-v' (verbose) flag to common Unix
> commands ('mv', 'ln', etc.) so that it was clearer to readers a) what
> the result of running the command was (especially in the case of 'ln')
> and b) if they'd made an
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 07/27/05 19:01 CST:
> I recall that early in chapter 6 there was a change to 'install -d' over
> 'mkdir' for the Create Directories section though I can't remember the
> reason behind that particular change. I don't suppose it would hurt to
> change out the
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 07/27/05 19:25 CST:
> IMHO it's not worth it for those obvious ones. As Randy says, only when
> custom perms are needed should you need to resort to `install -d'
Just to set the record straight. I am not saying to use 'install -d'
when "custom" perms are required
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/28/05 12:16 CST:
> Err, *hundreds* of lines? What commands did you add '-v' on to make it
> output that much. In the vast majority of cases it should just be one
> line per command, I would imagine.
I took the OP to mean the BLFS additions of -v. Over o
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST:
> So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
> them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
> work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue and
> you don't. I think
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 13:22 CST:
> I was pointing out the facts, as I see them and as they are on the
> list. This is my only post on this whole issue, everything else has come
> through Gerard after communicating with me. It's time for me to defend
> myself, because thi
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:29 CST:
[snip bunch of garbage]
> How do you expect me to work with you on something when you attacked me
> like you did, what you did was totally uncalled for and unacceptable by
> moral standards. You should of communicated to me privately, instead
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:49 CST:
> For after 6.1 - Has anyone thought about ways to measure usage of BLFS
> packages - I'm not talking about popt, but courier vs postfix vs
> sendmail or Gnome vs Kde vs a-small-and-beautiful-wm etc?
>
> LFS has the 'registered user' thing on
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:47 CST:
> What's more, he's done so in a dignified and rational manner, he hasn't
> at all been accusatory or rash, so his messages could hardly be found an
> attempt to have the last say in the matter.
I see it differently. So, we'll just have t
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/30/05 01:25 CST:
> Randy if you were being accused of things, wouldn't you speak up. Yes
> you would. Since this wasn't taken care of privately, and my name which
> is associated with LFS is dragged through the mud. It affects all of us.
> The easiest solution
Hi all,
Noted in the list of required patches in the GCC-4 branch is the
gcc-4.0.1-no_fixincludes-1.patch patch. However, this patch does not
seem to be referenced in the text of the book to ever be installed.
Is this patch required?
If not, perhaps it should be removed from the list of patches.
Hi all,
Noted in the Chapter 5 instructions for Tar in the GCC-4 book is
an instruction to install a patch (gcc4_fix_tests). The text describing
this patch is inaccurate because this patch is not required to build
or install the package.
The patch is only required if you run the test-suite. Perha
David Fix wrote these words on 07/30/05 11:56 CST:
> Sorry that I'm a bit off topic... :) Where can I view the GCC-4 branch of
> the book? I'd be interested in giving some feedback about it! :)
I find it easiest to check out the SVN sources and render the book
myself. It is easier to stay wit
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/30/05 11:41 CST:
> Is this patch required?
>
> If not, perhaps it should be removed from the list of patches.
Looking at the ChangeLog it appears this patch is no longer used,
so I've attached a patch to fix the branch sources.
--
Randy
rm
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/30/05 11:47 CST:
> Noted in the Chapter 5 instructions for Tar in the GCC-4 book is
> an instruction to install a patch (gcc4_fix_tests). The text describing
> this patch is inaccurate because this patch is not required to build
> or install
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/30/05 12:21 CST:
> This is a list of the remaining 6.1 bugs that need package updates:
>
> Bug Package Assigned to
>
> 1350 Kerberos
> 1369 Tidy Randy
> 1430 LIBPCAP
> 1443 Firefox
> 1444 Thunderbird Richard
> 1475 Ethereal Randy
> -
Hi all,
I'd like to make folks aware of something, and let this be discussed
and see if perhaps some action should be taken.
There is a Bash-3.0 Docs tarball that can be downloaded which has
lots of additional Bash docs in many formats. This tarball is rather
large (1.9 MB), and because if this t
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/30/05 13:54 CST:
> Well, bashref.html is linked to from
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~matthew/LFS-references.html, which is
> itself linked to from chapter01/resources.html in the book. We could
> add a link to the full bash-doc tarball to the LFS-r
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/30/05 14:43 CST:
> M.Canales.es wrote:
>
>>The precedent is already here. We are dowloading the glibc-linuxthreads
>>package only to install the API manpages.
>
> Damn this all too knowledgable community! Thanks Manuel. Randy, care
> to bugzilla this?
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/30/05 14:52 CST:
> Well, I'm all for conserving BZ numbers :) Sure, the patch would be
> great! Thanks.
Attached. I'm not sure if adding the tarball to the Packages file
was correct. If not, simply remove those lines.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/31/05 12:45 CST:
> Greg, stop insulting the community and individuals. You started this on
> list, and it will be finished on list.
But Jim, it will *never* be finished with you two guys.
"Did so"
"Did not"
"Did so"
"Did not"
...
How is this going to res
Hi all,
I'm just about finished building the GCC4 branch of LFS which is
(I believe) trunk using GCC-4.0.1. Everyone is by now aware that
there will be difficulties with some BLFS packages using GCC-4.x.
I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
looking for ideas on how t
Hi all,
I'm just about finished building the GCC4 branch of LFS which is
(I believe) trunk using GCC-4.0.1. Everyone is by now aware that
there will be difficulties with some BLFS packages using GCC-4.x.
I am going to begin building BLFS packages using GCC-4.0.1 and I'm
looking for ideas on how t
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/01/05 13:28 CST:
> [snip]
Sorry, wrong list
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
13:33:01 up 121 days, 13:06, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.27, 0
Richard A Downing wrote these words on 08/01/05 13:56 CST:
> http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/
Thanks Richard, I have already done quite a bit of research, along
with visiting the link you mentioned. However, I think you misunderstood
the purpose of my message.
I'm not so much lo
Hi all,
Just a really, really minor nit from my notes:
In the Chapter 5 Tcl instructions it wouldn't hurt to throw in a
chmod -v 755 /tools/lib/libtcl8.4.so
command at the end of the instructions. The reason being is that if
you do the stripping at the end of Chapter 5 as the LFS user, this fil
Hi all,
A minor nit I noticed in the Chapter 5 GCC instructions (all versions):
Noted in the SBU times between Pass 1 and Pass 2 is that they seem to
be reversed. Pass 1 is shown to be 4.4 SBU and Pass 2 is 11.0. Shouldn't
these be the other way around?
My experience is that bootstrapping Pass 1
Hi all,
Just a suggestion for the Vim instructions. Discuss, disregard or
whatever!
A symlink from /usr/share/doc to the docs stashed away in
/usr/share/vim/vim63/doc would be nice. I like it when the docs are
located in a spot where you can find them. :-)
ln -v -s ../vim/vim63/doc /usr/share/do
stirling wrote these words on 08/02/05 23:48 CST:
> enigmail and ipc need version bumps in the mozilla instructions to be
> consistent with the versions used for thunderbird:
>
> enigmail-0.92.0
> ipc-1.1.3
Indeed. Mozdev shows these versions to be used with Mozilla-1.7.x
This almost seems some
Archaic wrote these words on 08/03/05 13:51 CST:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:45:37AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>A symlink from /usr/share/doc to the docs stashed away in
>>/usr/share/vim/vim63/doc would be nice. I like it when the docs are
>>located in a spot
Hi all,
Noted in the Chapter 6 Texinfo instructions is that the texi2pdf shell
script is not listed in the "Installed programs" section. Perhaps this
needs to be added, and a note added to the Errata page.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library
0.02
Submitted By: Randy McMurchy
Date:2005-08-03
Initial Package Version: 1.0.3
Upstream Status: Not submitted
Origin: Randy McMurchy
Description: Installs pre-formatted documentation
diff -Naur bzip2-1.0.3-orig/Makefile bzip2
Hi all,
Attached is a patch which can be applied to trunk (and other branches
as well, I think) which will provide instructions to run the Module Init
Tools test suite and fix BZ #1597.
I read in the bug where Matt was concerned about providing two set of
instructions, this patch provides instruc
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/04/05 13:01 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>+If you wish to run the test suite for Module-Init-Tools, download the
>>+separate tarball and unpack it along with the source tarball.
>
> What tarball? Now, as it's op
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/04/05 13:11 CST:
> Well, I thought about that, but because the version number of the
> testsuite tarball and the source tarball are the same (unlike the
> Bash tarball and the Bash Docs tarball) and the fact they are
> downloaded from the sa
Hi all,
Noted in the NEWS file for the Shadow package is that that mkpasswd
program was removed in the 4.0.10 version. I cannot confirm this as
I am updating to 4.0.11.1. You may want to check and see if this
program exists. If not, the book should be updated to reflect this.
http://ftp.pld.org.p
Hi all,
Something I've thought about for a long time, and now that CrackLib
is a maintained and stable package, I would like to propose that the
community consider adding this package to Chapter 6 in the LFS build.
Here are some things to consider.
1) A system is not secure if strong passwords a
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/04/05 17:10 CST:
> It's an addon, not a required package. I just don't think it's place is
> in LFS or Cross-LFS. I think BLFS is the perfect place, since it's an
> optional package.
I agree with you in that it is optional. However, there are lots of
packages
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/04/05 17:29 CST:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/cracklib (Randy's proposal)
> http://www.fifi.org/doc/cracklib2/ (A debian package)
> http://www.crypticide.com/users/alecm/ (The original library and until
> now the only cracklib I knew of!)
For the reco
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/04/05 17:59 CST:
> I would like to propose that before adding/removing packages from the
> book, we should formalize what packages can be included in the book
> (Jeroen had already started the process of formalizing the process
> before he left, maybe that
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/04/05 18:18 CST:
> Is it a common enough (ie, several mainstream distros include it by
> default) package to mandate that every LFS user build and install it?
I really don't know, Jeremy. I don't mess around enough with other
Distros to be qualified to an
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/04/05 18:33 CST:
> There any many different methods for user authentication and password
> setup. If it's just about creating a secure password, we should add
> npasswd. http://www.utexas.edu/cc/unix/software/npasswd
Not to argue your position on this Jim, but
Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 18:30 CST:
> Perhaps I'm being to anal about it, but I see little to no value in
> building binaries, testing them, then wiping them and building new
> binaries. IOW, it doesn't test anything other than the _possibility_
> that the next binaries _might_ be goo
Zachary Kotlarek wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:04 CST:
> Another issue is that cracklib only helps you enforce whatever
> password policies cracklib likes. So if your password complexity
> policy doesn't match the one that cracklib enforces it's again just
> extra junk that gets in the wa
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:12 CST:
> This is a stretch. To the best of my knowledge, all the CrackLib
> library does is check that the password a user enters during the
> password changing routine does not match something in the user's
> entry in /etc/passwd
steve crosby wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:56 CST:
> Regardless, if the end user doesn't like/want the policy, all that's
> required is to skip this package installation, much the same as people
> can currently skip things like gettext, module-init tools, etc.
I'm not sure about that. My testi
steve crosby wrote these words on 08/04/05 20:12 CST:
> Even using --with-libcrack, if no cracklib is found, configure and
> make merrily proceed without error and build the binaries - I'm not
> able to test the resulting binaries are workable for a few hours
> however ;)
This is good to know. I
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/04/05 20:09 CST:
> The problem is that BLFS assumes that you have built *all* package in
> LFS. So if you skip a package, you are a pariah when you post to
> BLFS-support :-)
>
> That is one reason I don't prefer packages being added to LFS, it
> takes awa
Nice discussion. 30 messages in just over 3 hours!
Now, this is what this list is all about!
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
20:28:00 up 124 days, 20:01, 2 users, load average: 0.30, 0.38,
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/04/05 20:03 CST:
> steve crosby wrote:
>
>>Regardless, if the end user doesn't like/want the policy, all that's
>>required is to skip this package installation, much the same as people
>>can currently skip things like gettext, module-init tools, etc.
>
> We
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/04/05 21:10 CST:
> As the bug report shows, add
> 'PATH DEFAULT=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:... OVERIDE=${PATH}' to
> /etc/security/pam_env.conf to create a valid user path. For a default
> root (superuser) path, create a valid /root/.bashrc that contains the
> o
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/04/05 21:19 CST:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>>Well, add it without question then. As long as the book mentions that
>>you can skip it if you want.
>>
>
> If that's the case it's not needed then.
With all due respect Jim, your contributions have so far been
wo
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/04/05 21:34 CST:
> If a package is going to be added with the note that's it's not needed
> or can be skipped, it does not belong in LFS.
Exactly. That is why I came back on Jeremy's message about this.
However, he has not replied, so I don't know what to thin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/04/05 22:21 CST:
> There are already precedents in the LFS book where items are shown to be
> at least somewhat optional. Read section 7.1. Also, the entire idea
> behind LFS is to customize the system to fit your needs - to be able to
> be in full contro
Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:25 CST:
> I was not aware of LFS being so strict. There are cases where the user is
> given a choice, for example with regard to System-V or BSD style init (notes
> in psmisc about a symlink and 7.1 with a link to the BSD init hint). I don't
601 - 700 of 1031 matches
Mail list logo
