Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:32 CST:
> Here is an argument, then: it isn't needed for a base development system
> as proven by 6 years of its absence. There is no valid technical reason
> to include it or exclude it. It's merely a choice.
This can be said for many of the LFS packages.
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:30 CST:
> I agree. All that's needed is to add a link to that section of BLFS in
> the Shadow instructions. Besides, I thought tight security was what HLFS
> existed for - the base LFS is mostly just to teach people how to create
> a system that work
Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:42 CST:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 11:39:06PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>This can be said for many of the LFS packages. Please provide an
>>opinion on whether it should be added to the default LFS build.
>
> Link to BLFS only.
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/04/05 19:50 CST:
> Then perhaps the BLFS instructions should be modified.
No, the BLFS instruction do exactly as they are intended. To
provide instructions to recompile Shadow if Linux-PAM is installed.
My suggestion is to add CrackLib to LFS so that Shadow it
Archaic wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:52 CST:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 11:46:46PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>There would be no link that we could offer in LFS that could assist
>>the user in configuring Shadow to work with CrackLib. BLFS does not
>>have such
Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 08/04/05 23:59 CST:
> Glad to offer my opinion. Secure passwords are important, agreed.
> However the users of the LFS system are varying. A user who built LFS
> for the educational value or who wants a different password library or
> who uses it on a s
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:07 CST:
> Randy what educational value does cracklib add if it's used with Shadow
> in LFS?
Glad you asked Jim.
Installing the CrackLib library and having Shadow link against it
shows folks how to set up and use a word dictionary to guard against
weak
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:05 CST:
> That's what I mean - modify (or add to) the BLFS instructions so that it
> explains how to use cracklib with shadow but without PAM.
So what Chris, we should modify the Shadow instructions to include
some instructions on how to compile if Li
Archaic wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:18 CST:
> I have already stated it. There is no *technical* reason for including
> it in a base development system.
That is not a reason to not include it. The technical reason I state
is that it provides a mechanism to enforce strong passwords on the
syst
Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:23 CST:
> It is hard to give good arguments for this question. I cannot argue
> that it isn't a useful library, and I use cracklib on every LFS system I
> build,
Yet you give a -1 for the simple addition of a single little old
library (and its
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:28 CST:
> Why keep them from setting their passwords to "password" if that's what
> they want to do?
They still can. :-)
However, should LFS install the mechanism to provide such an absolutely
poor security model?
I don't think so. And I can't imagi
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:39 CST:
> Randy, that's hardly fair. Several times in this thread people *have*
> offered you reasons and you come back and say they aren't valid,
That is simply not true. Please, Jeremy, provide just one time someone
offered a reason, other than
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/05/05 00:40 CST:
> That's right, I don't have a technical reason against it. I just have a
> problem in general with forcing someone to do something (like pick a
> "strong") password "for their own good". Same reason why I don't think
> seatbelt laws should e
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/05/05 01:19 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>The choice is still up to the reader to install the package or not.
>
> That's not a valid reasoning, particulary since it was you who said
> earlier that no package in LFS should ca
Archaic wrote these words on 08/05/05 01:27 CST:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:09:05AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>However, you wear your seatbelt, I'm sure. Regardless of the law.
>>Because it is the *smart* thing to do.
>
> Perhaps statistically it is, but try
Archaic wrote these words on 08/05/05 01:42 CST:
> The track has ended, though. Unless someone comes up with a new POV it
> is stagnated at people's person opinions. Of the 3 opinions, 2 are
> absolute ends of the spectrum and one is not. I have not seen anyone say
> that a hint would be a bad mov
Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 08/05/05 01:53 CST:
> I am not sure if even a hint is needed, since it would be the worlds
> shortest hint! ;) It would say "install cracklib from BLFS, install
> shadow from LFS".
Actually, not. The BLFS shadow instructions disable CrackLib because
it i
Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 08/05/05 02:04 CST:
> I didn't say anything about disabling cracklib. I said to "install
> cracklib from BLFS". If one only installs cracklib, and returns to LFS
> to continue with shadow, all is good, right?
No, you must explicitly use --with-libcrack f
Archaic wrote these words on 08/05/05 02:01 CST:
> As an optional, yes. I also concur. However, the point that you just
> don't seem to be accepting is that a hint serves exactly that purpose.
No, Archiac, a hint doesn't serve the same purpose. I am proposing
that CrackLib be added to the Chapter
Hi all,
Noted in the most recent build of LFS (using the GCC4 branch, but
this probably would affect trunk as well) is that the Libtool
installation installs files in /usr/share/libtool/libltdl/ with
1000:1000 permissions instead of 0:0 (root:root).
Can anyone check and see if this is the case on
Archaic wrote these words on 08/06/05 10:02 CST:
> If 6.1 is recent enough, then I can say that the perms are 0:0 here.
We'll need to get a more recent build from somebody. Stable uses
Libtool-1.5.14 and Development uses 1.5.18.
I see the issue using 1.5.18
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 08/06/05 10:11 CST:
> Randy McMurchy([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:56:17AM -0500:
>>Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
>>LFS to confirm this?
>
> Confirmed.Same permissions as yours Randy.
Thank
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/06/05 14:59 CST:
> 1) Patch libtool using the upstream patch
> 2) Do the `chown` on the installed files ourselves
> 3) Do the `chown` on the source files ourselves
>
> I'd prefer to go with #1 as it prevents having to even discuss the
> relative merits of
Hi all,
I would like to request that trunk be updated to the latest release
of the Shadow package (4.0.11.1). There is an additional configure switch
that needs to be added to enable shadowed groups, as you all are already
aware.
This would make it a bit simpler on the BLFS side, as a patch for P
Hi all,
I believe I've run across a bug in the LFS Bootscripts. It appears to
me that if the concerned script (I've only tested BLFS scripts, but I
suppose I could kill the sysklog stuff and try it) is not started, and
you issue a
/etc/rc.d/init.d/script status
command, it will report that it is
Hi all,
Some weird activity with the Inetutils FTP client when compiled with
GCC-4.0.1. Note that a new patch has been introduced to the GCC-4
branch of LFS to "correct" GCC4 problems. This patch affects two
files used to compile the ftp client program. If anybody can
explain, or care to comment a
Hi all,
Well, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the debate about adding CrackLib
to LFS. There was a bunch of ideas thrown around. It seemed healthy for
the list.
Anyway, some of the folks who provided arguments why CrackLib should
not be added had very good ideas about LFS, goals, etc.
I tend to
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 21:31 CST:
> What it is reporting is the script itself, which I agree is a bug. You
> don't see ps output because as soon as the script is done it dies. Using
> status you should get a different PID each time. If the daemon is
> running, the PID of the script
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 22:55 CST:
> How's this wording grab you?
Perfect.
--
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]
22:57:02 up 127 days, 22:30, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.04, 0.
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:05 CST:
> Randy what shell is linked to /bin/sh on your system?
/bin/bash
Should be easy enough to check out. Did it on a hand made script
I have for vixie-cron and it did it on the BLFS xinetd script as
well.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 22:55 CST:
> How's this wording grab you?
I feel terrible. I have made a huge mistake. There is another
configuration that must be done for Shadow to use CrackLib. In the
command that creates the /etc/login.defs file, the following addition
to the existing se
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:22 CST:
> Randy, my functions are heavily modified ATM. To make sure that this is
> not a different issue, can you run the same test and post back? It
> doesn't matter which script, just use one that is running.
Here is what I inserted:
status)
Archaic wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:51 CST:
> I'm wondering if perhaps another note just prior to the original sed
> would be apropo, or if it should all be placed in the main note. The
> latter seems rather disconnected to me.
I'm thinking it would be best inside the beginning note. 2 reaso
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/07/05 23:55 CST:
> I'm thinking it would be best inside the beginning note. 2 reasons.
>
> 1) The disconnection you mention
> 2) The command is long. It prolly won't fit on a PDF page so it needs
> to be split with a backslash an
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:04 CST:
> Making a change like that for one package doesn't make sense. If we do
> that, why do we need BLFS, just put everything in LFS and say it's optional.
Jim, please enter the discussion with something worthwhile. How am
I to take you serious whe
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:44 CST:
> As soon as the render is done, you can find the "2 notes" example here:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html
This would work. I would use [command] tags for the word 'sed' and
I would for sure make the '-e
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 00:46 CST:
> I just don't see any reason for all this hype for a way to check what a
> user uses for a password.
>From a technical standpoint Jim, you are just simply wrong. Exploiting
weak passwords are the single most widely used method to gain access
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:17 CST:
> Not something that checks a word file, I would go for a password scheme
> enforcement solution for shadow or even a replacement of shadow altogether.
Well great, Jim. We are getting somewhere. You obviously agree that a
solution to provide
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:25 CST:
> Literal, by itself, doesn't seem to influence line wrapping,
I suppose I shouldn't have made literal, so [literal] :-)
I was more thinking of things like [screen][userinput] type
tags that force stuff to be on one line and be 'literal' (as to
wh
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:33 CST:
> Okay, give a look:
That looks good. The only thing is perhaps:
s/add/insert/ in the sentence. No telling how many folks will try
to add (append) the -e script to the command instead of inserting
where it belongs.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld vers
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:38 CST:
> That looks good. The only thing is perhaps:
>
> s/add/insert/ in the sentence. No telling how many folks will try
> to add (append) the -e script to the command instead of inserting
> where it belongs.
Better yet, is what
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:40 CST:
> So you will need to get support for adding PAM and cracklib to LFS,
> which I'm not sure the community will support.
It was about 50-50 running with the CrackLib idea, however, some of
the positives about CrackLib were adamant that PAM could
Hi all,
Not sure who takes care of Bugzilla but if someone could add a
GCC4 category to the 'Versions' that are used to describe which
book the bug is noted in, it would be good. I added a bug that
is specific to the GGC4 branch, but could find no way to really
identify it as such.
--
Randy
rml
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/08/05 11:08 CST:
> On 8/8/05, Jens Olav Nygaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Would this have affected the build in any serious way?
>
> Nope, it won't affect the build at all. Because libtool is not used by
> any of the packages unless you regenerate autot
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 15:26 CST:
> Have your verified that the bug with cracklib that was posted in
> BLFS from a long time back has been fixed. Here is what I remember of
> the bug. I know this issue had to deal with PAM but we had some
> complaints about it not workin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:17 CST:
> I am anxious to hear the entire LFS community's thoughts, so please, if
> you have an opinion about this, speak up.
I have an automated procedure for building LFS which uses Bash scripts
as well. Probably many do. And though these scripts
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:41 CST:
> I'd say workaround it for now by just installing the docs by hand, if my
> opinion counts for anything over here in BLFS land :)
That is exactly what has been done.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.
Archaic wrote these words on 08/09/05 16:04 CST:
> Groovy. BTW, just taking a quick peek at my buildscript for strace (I
> can't remember how long it was that I wrote it), strace is a cmmi
> package.
Yes, I believe it is. But the point of this page is not so much to
provide build instructions as
Archaic wrote these words on 08/09/05 16:14 CST:
> Understood. But since the discussion of gdb instruction came up, I
> thought it might be relevant to the discussion since a page for strace
> would require very minimal maintenance.
Yeah, I kind of thought my message before this was rather blunt.
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/09/05 15:59 CST:
> In the future, can I request that before sending such emails, you
> consider entering them into bugzilla instead.
Good plan. It *is* frustrating for folks (I've been there) to submit
what you think is a good idea on the mailing list, onl
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/09/05 21:12 CST:
> Okay, does the spamd script that you use set PIDFILE?
Because I'm the one that started this thread by reporting what I
felt was an error in the functions, I am curious if anyone else has
seen the issue I see. I would hate the DJ is fighting some
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/10/05 11:32 CST:
> Uggh, sorry! Stupid autocomplete on Thunderbird got the wrong list!
Sure.
Actually, it was just a sneaky way to get your message sent to another
list. :-)
You know, something you might consider. Several technical lists
(newsgroups)
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/11/05 10:58 CST:
> Is someone in a position to verify that those symlinks are still
> necessary?
I believe the commands to create those symlinks are still necessary.
My build script uses 'ln -v -s' *not* ln -v -sf, and I log everything.
The install.log sho
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/12/05 09:39 CST:
> The GCC4 book hasn't been touched in over a week, and in that time there
> have been several changes to the development trunk that haven't been
> applied to GCC4. This includes...
There is only one guy working on this branch and he has admit
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/12/05 11:16 CST:
> Yes. I tested that 4.1.13a builds and tests with the book's
> instructions earlier this week, prior to filing bug 1515.
4.1.13a?
Where does this come from? There is no mention of it on the MySQL
web site, or BLFS.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/12/05 11:22 CST:
> 4.1.13a?
>
> Where does this come from? There is no mention of it on the MySQL
> web site, or BLFS.
Never mind. I found it. Apparently, there are MySQL web mirrors that
are not synced up.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 08/10/05 04:15 CST:
> Log of the already installed packages attached,most of them confirmed to work
>
> libxml2-2.6.20
This is odd. LibXML2 crapped out for me during the 'make'.
runtest.o: In function `xpathDocTest':
/home/rml/build/libxml2-2.6.20/runtest.c:2404: u
Chris Staub wrote these words on 08/12/05 23:20 CST:
> The installation instructions for Texinfo give an "optional" step for a
> "TeX" installation, but it doesn't say why you would need it or what
> programs might require it. Some kind of additional description should be
> there (even if it's n
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 08/13/05 12:17 CST:
> It's not finished, I'm still only halfway through Gnome so I keep rebooting
> the google for patches. It was easier to run the grep from the host
> (gcc-3.4.4) system.
That makes sense. Andrew, thanks for your help earlier. I figured out
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/13/05 15:04 CST:
> Another question, what is the version name that is used. For stable
> releases, instead of using naming it 2.2.26, they use stable-20050429.
> IMO we should use their terminology. Two reasons:
> (1) We are not at odds with the versioning
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/13/05 15:28 CST:
> I use --enable-dynamic in my builds too. I think it is only used for
> the slapd backends. i.e. whether to link them in dynamic or static. I
> am running a build without the dynamic. Lets see what the difference
> is.
My understanding (f
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 08/14/05 08:25 CST:
> No,my build was based on the cvn of 30 of July with some cosmetic changes by
> me but nothing serious to affect the glibc built.
>
> I already saw that your problem started from Heimdal was overwritten the
> glob.h which installed by glibc,but
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/14/05 14:07 CST:
> However, I'm only going to invest time in
> this if someone can convince me of why we *need* to move 'test' and '['
> to /bin.
They are both used in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220]
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/14/05 23:31 CST:
> but do
> we want to restore the old functionality of printing a warning when
> something is not running in killproc? I believe we have three yes' so
> far. Anyone have any preference for the way it is now?
Gosh, it is a no-brainer DJ. Chalk m
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/14/05 23:47 CST:
> Is that yes - I'd like to see a nice green '[ OK ]' when I stop an
> already stopped process (the way it is now, which _is_ correct by the
> exit status)?
That sucks.
> Or is that yes - I'd like to see a yellow 'Warning: not
> running [
Doug Ronne wrote these words on 08/15/05 11:19 CST:
> Oops, right you are. Though shouldn't it say ignore this if you do
> NOT want the threading man pages?
Please don't top-post, and perhaps consider trimming your quoted text.
Anyway, there are many things in the LFS book which folks could ignor
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/15/05 12:38 CST:
> Should I call the package cm-super and put it into the A-C directory on
> anduin, just go ahead and put it into the T-V directory with the rest of
> tetex, or rename the package to tetex-cm-super?
I like tetex-cm-super. That way everything is
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/15/05 13:55 CST:
> How about:
>
> "To test the results, issue: make check. Note that the “torture
> load testing” option uses more resources than is displayed in the
> prompt."
I like this much better. However, I still think the s/is/those/ is
necessary to mat
Greg Schafer wrote these words on 08/01/05 17:36 CST:
> It might be worth mentioning that Qt can be built using precompiled headers
> to speed up the build. PCH became available in GCC-3.4.x. I just did some
> rough testing on a box here and the savings are substantial:
>
> - without PCH 3
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/16/05 14:14 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>In QT-4.0.0 (I'm ready to update the book, but Bruce has the bug
>>tagged for him to do it, so I'm putting notes in the BZ entry)
>>-pch is the default.
>
> Go ahead and reass
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/16/05 19:20 CST:
> Make sure that
> /etc/udev/rules.d/25-lfs.rules is in place and contains these lines:
>
> # ALSA devices go in their own subdirectory
>
> KERNEL="controlC[0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k", GROUP="audio"
> KERNEL="hw[CD0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k", GROUP="au
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/17/05 14:33 CST:
> Unfortunately, one can't nest backticks,
I'm not so sure about that. From the Bash man page:
"Command substitutions may be nested. To nest when using the
backquoted form, escape the inner backquotes with backslashes."
--
Randy
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/17/05 16:18 CST:
> Randy McMurchy quoted from the Bash man page:
>> "Command substitutions may be nested. To nest when using the
>> backquoted form, escape the inner backquotes with backslashes."
>
> Can you say *ugly*. :)
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/18/05 10:27 CST:
> The question is should we revert to a standard init.d/ startup script
> for alsa?
The whole reason for the change was the bug Alex created. The issue
is that some slower computers do not have the device nodes ready when
the init script runs,
Doug Ronne wrote these words on 08/19/05 10:32 CST:
> On 8/19/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>After LFS is built, you can safely delete the /tools directory, but
>>I recommend keeping it as a contingency if something should ever go wrong.
>
> I never thought of that, pretty good i
Hi all,
I would like to propose a consideration for LFS to move towards the
GCC-4 branch as the default LFS build. There are issues, but none that
are really show-stoppers.
I have built over 150 packages using the GCC-4 branch of LFS without
anything that I can see is "buggy". Except of course, t
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/20/05 14:15 CST:
> [snip all]
I can go either way on this one. It will be something I install whether
in LFS or not. However, if we remove it from LFS, does this mean we can
move to GCC-4 as the default compiler? :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/20/05 15:06 CST:
> We actually have a situation in cross-lfs were we had to remove
> inetutils since it work properly on Sparc builds.
If it worked properly, why did you have to remove it? :-)
(please don't answer, I know what you meant. I'm just making a joke
Hi all,
Just a nit about the look of the 'Book Info' table which is presented
at the beginning of the BLFS book before the TOC.
IMHO, the look is unattractive and presents an air of amateurism. The
table layout has a look that is the default of creating a table in
HTML (borders, spacing, etc).
A
Forwarding to BLFS-Dev in case it is something we have to fix instead
of the website guys.
Original Message
Subject: Opps in BLFS
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:40:09 -0400
From: baho-utot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Website Maintenance List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi all,
Does this count as having a test suite?
(from the output of 'make check')
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/rml/build/libmikmod-3.1.11/libmikmod'
echo "Of course it works ! (-:"
Of course it works ! (-:
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rml/build/libmikmod-3.1.11/libmikmod'
--
Randy
William Harrington wrote these words on 08/21/05 12:28 CST:
> Here's something for those of us who just build gtk2 systems.
> Try it out and give some feedback.
Thanks, William. I noticed you sent your patch to the Patches
project as well.
I can't see this patch being something we would mandate f
[cc'd to BLFS-Support as it appears it should be directed there]
William Harrington wrote these words on 08/21/05 11:28 CST:
> Has anyone experienced the problem where the dynamic loader
> library is not included in the list of LIBS?
I am not seeing this issue. I am including the ent
Hi all,
With the GNOME-2.12 release due to be ready in a couple of weeks,
I'd like to propose a couple of new packages that need to be added
to the BLFS book.
It is my understanding that GNOME-2.12 will require the 2.8 branch
of GTK+. This is a brand-new release and now requires the Cairo
graphic
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/22/05 15:06 CST:
>>[1] Exceptions being: /lib/libproc-3.2.5.so (555), /usr/lib/libc.so (644),
>>/usr/lib/libpthread.so (644), /usr/lib/preloadable_libintl.so (644), and
>>Perl's modules (555)
>
> /usr/lib/lib{c,pthread}.so aren't libraries, they are ld scrip
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/23/05 10:58 CST:
> Bernard Leak wrote:
>>The following links for optional dependencies for gst-plugins seem
>>to be broken:
>
> See:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/introduction/packages.html
Still, seems that updating the book with valid URLs (
Hi all,
Just an update for anyone interested. I've got many packages built
using the GCC-4 branch of LFS. Included so far is a functional KDE
desktop, some multimedia stuff, pdf viewer, everything it takes to
use subversion and render the LFS books, printing capability using
CUPS, Samba support an
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/23/05 18:48 CST:
> I know you have compiled them, but have you tested their
> functionality.
Yes.
--
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]
18:49:00 up 143
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/24/05 12:10 CST:
> From the rest of your message, it looks like you're using `texi2dvi'
> followed by the various `dvi2*' binaries from TeX to process these.
I've been doing it like this:
texi2dvi --pdf file.texi (could also just use texi2pdf)
texi2dvi
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/24/05 12:35 CST:
> But, I like having multiple browsers so that I can look at different
> things on different desktops. Epiphany works with the book's current
> instructions, with a different set of instructions the .pc files didn't
> get installed (and the
[forwarded from blfs-support]
Original Message
Subject: Re: Firefox and profile locking: Chapter 2
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:47:44 -0500
From: Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/24/05 15:30 CST:
> The issue of profile locking wh
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 08/24/05 15:54 CST:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/24/05 15:30 CST:
>
>>The issue of profile locking when trying to open a URL in an already
>>running Firefox received some attention on blfs-support. Kevin
>>Somervill went th
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/24/05 16:44 CST:
> Look at the file
> mozilla/browser/app/mozilla.in
> This is the base for the firefox script. You can do the same sed on
> this file before the build to achieve the same effect. Like I said, I
> have the patch, but I'm at work and can't get
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 08/24/05 16:25 CST:
> Surely the choice is between /opt and /usr/local? I vote for /usr/local. It'd
> be good to try and keep executable scripts and binaries out of /usr/lib
Actually, I'm now leaning to simply doing a sed on the installed
/usr/bin/firefox after
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/24/05 17:06 CST:
> No problem. The very special thanks really goes to Kevin Somervill
> for actually going through the firefox (mozilla) script and figuring
> out there's an error. I doubt the base of that script has been
> changed in years. Someone should
Hi all,
Does anyone at all use the Openquicktime library for anything useful?
I would like to remove this package from BLFS for the following
reasons:
1. It is a dead project. No new stable release in over 4 years.
2. There is a mention of an optional downloadable codec, but no
mention what to
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/27/05 00:47 CDT:
> Should we substitute this library for the Openquicktime library?
I think so, but I didn't want to suggest it as I wasn't sure who/why
put the Openquicktime library in the book. libquicktime likes
jpeg-mmx and both are moving targets right now
Any thoughts Matt about using GCC-4 as the default SVN build compiler?
I only ask again as last time I asked it seemed the respondents were
positive about the idea. I can't think of anyone that said it was
a bad idea. I don't consider your input as a "bad idea" as much as
a "careful consideration"
William Harrington wrote these words on 08/27/05 13:30 CDT:
> Do I need to send the patch for inetutils for ftp and libinetutil to
> the patches group or will the patch be in the patches archive so
> people don't keep patching inetutils with the incorrect patch?
Matt is a busy guy. I'm sure when
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/28/05 00:43 CST:
> 3 seconds to really slow down a brute force attack. Yeah sure, that 3
> seconds is really gonna hurt...anyway, Linux_PAM-0.80 is fixed now WRT
> the segfault issue with shadow's su. shadow-4.0.12 seems to work as
> expected. I think LFS is in
701 - 800 of 1031 matches
Mail list logo
