Juaco
Juaco wrote:
> That is the truth. If you have decided to use LFS anyway, what did you
> expect...wizards to install/manage your sw?
I never said that I expected anything else! In fact my build differed
from the book in various other ways (I didn't use NPTL, but only
linuxthreads: It's a
Vince Greg wrote on 19-01-07 07:42:
> Thank you for these information but can you give me exactly the complete
> command of fdisk for my partition because I don't want to lose all my work
>
> Is it dangerous for my datas and all the work I do???
Yes, this can be dangerous. Be sure to backup every
>Use fdisk. Option 'l' to list known partition types, option 't' to
>change a partition's system Id. 'l' shows 7 as HPFS/NTFS, 83 is the
>usual value for linux (and what fdisk normally defaults to). I
>think you said you were using hda7, probably you accidentally keyed
>'t' while you were creat
Dan, Ken, Randy:
Thank you very much for your interest in the subject.
Unfortunately your comments while very interesting and meaningful haven't
helped in moved me any closer to solving the problem.
Except Dan's "try running strace around the lp call". I will.
Going over your comments I realize
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 1/18/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > After reading the original, then Ken's reply and now Dan's, we all
> > seem to think a bit differently on this one. My gut feel is that it
> > is a CUPS thing just not bein
Jack Brown wrote:
> XStow is quite nice:
>
> Packaging:
> ./configure --prefix=/usr &&
> make &&
> make DESTDIR=/stow/package-name install
>
> Installation: cd /stow && xstow package-name/
>
> Uninstallation: cd /stow && xstow -D package-name/
>
I like netbsd's pkgsrc
cd /usr/pkgsrc/wm/fluxbo
On 1/18/07, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> After reading the original, then Ken's reply and now Dan's, we all
> seem to think a bit differently on this one. My gut feel is that it
> is a CUPS thing just not being configured correctly. I've always
> found CUPS to be reliable and solid
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/18/07 16:45 CST:
> In my experience, CUPS can be kind of dodgy. So, I wouldn't be
> surprised if CUPS is just failing to access your printer completely
> but lying to you about it.
After reading the original, then Ken's reply and now Dan's, we all
seem to thi
On 1/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Created a replica of the above system on a different drive.
> Obviously, worked identically, but then
> I installed the latest (104) Udev
> (same functionality as 103 except for some "bug fixes") from sources. No
> other changes/addition
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 02:43:31PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> LFS/BLFS system.
> i686-pc-linux-gnu 2.6.19.2
> CUPS 1.2.7. Parallel printer (garden variety).
> Udev 056 (LFS circa Sept. 2005)
> Works perfectly.
> BTW, by "perfect" here I mean the basic functions work clean
On 1/18/07, Vince Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Maybe, this is one of the times that 'partition' and 'filesystem'
> >cannot be used as synonyms. I'm fairly sure that e2fsprogs are not
> >too bothered about the partition _type_. What does 'fdisk -l' think
> >about the 'Id' and 'System' fields
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Vince Greg wrote:
> >Maybe, this is one of the times that 'partition' and 'filesystem'
> >cannot be used as synonyms. I'm fairly sure that e2fsprogs are not
> >too bothered about the partition _type_. What does 'fdisk -l' think
> >about the 'Id' and 'Syst
Benedikt Schmitt wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> currently I am setting up my first LFS build, which I do primarily to learn
> more about linux, while great performance or flexibility are less important
> (My machine is a standard Athlon i586 PC).
>
> On the other hand I also want to have a certain po
Hi everybody,
LFS/BLFS system.
i686-pc-linux-gnu 2.6.19.2
CUPS 1.2.7. Parallel printer (garden variety).
Udev 056 (LFS circa Sept. 2005)
Works perfectly.
BTW, by "perfect" here I mean the basic functions work clean and fully:
- Graphics (Xfree86-4.6)
- Networking
- Sound
- Printing
(other function
>Maybe, this is one of the times that 'partition' and 'filesystem'
>cannot be used as synonyms. I'm fairly sure that e2fsprogs are not
>too bothered about the partition _type_. What does 'fdisk -l' think
>about the 'Id' and 'System' fields ? If the Id isn't 83 ('Linux')
>try changing it in fdisk
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:22:18PM +0100, Vince Greg wrote:
> I use to create the partition the instruction in the lfs book
> And when I mount it how it's explain in the book no problem
> When I use explore2fs it recognize too an ext3 partition
>
Maybe, this is one of the times that 'partition' a
I use to create the partition the instruction in the lfs book
And when I mount it how it's explain in the book no problem
When I use explore2fs it recognize too an ext3 partition
Thanks
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
bojster wrote:
> bojster wrote:
>
>> Nadav Vinik wrote:
>>
>>> "The drawback is that you have to manually set files suid root (but on
>>> the other hand, it gives you more control over packages - you decide
>>> what should be suid) and that some packages need some tweaking, as
>>> their install pr
On 1/18/07, bojster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nadav Vinik wrote:
>
> > "The drawback is that you have to manually set files suid root (but on
> > the other hand, it gives you more control over packages - you decide
> > what should be suid) and that some packages need some tweaking, as
> > their
On 1/18/07, Vince Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know why it's possible to compile all packages on my hda7 and grub
> thinks is a NTFS partition
I think because the kernel knows how to deal with NTFS, but GRUB
doesn't. How did you create this partition?
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscr
Hello everybody,
I finish my LFS 6.2 installation but I have a problem with grub 0.97.
The partition that contains the lfs system is hda7 so on grub hd0,6
When I launch grub I do this :
grub> root (hd0,6)
Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0x7
I search on the web and I see that 0x7 is NTFS
bojster wrote:
> Nadav Vinik wrote:
>
> > "The drawback is that you have to manually set files suid root (but on
> > the other hand, it gives you more control over packages - you decide
> > what should be suid) and that some packages need some tweaking, as
> > their install process behaves badly.
Nadav Vinik wrote:
> "The drawback is that you have to manually set files suid root (but on
> the other hand, it gives you more control over packages - you decide
> what should be suid) and that some packages need some tweaking, as
> their install process behaves badly."
>
> And this is what you
There two reasons for installing LFS:
1. To study how Gnu/Linux system work.
2. To do special customization in Linux which different from other distros.
How installing the complicate PM achieve that?
Although this PM are good to create limited users.
The propers of LFS is not make the longest L
En 18/01/2007 09:00:18, Dave Abergel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> But it doesn't half help you learn your way around linux quickly. I used
> the package users on my second LFS build and it was very instructive, if
> a little frustrating at times.
>
> Dave
That is the truth. If you have decided
Hi
Nadav Vinik wrote:
> "The Book excludes any recommendations about which pack'man' to use,
> which doesn't make it easy for newbies"
>
> It is the most complicate from the others.
But it doesn't half help you learn your way around linux quickly. I used
the package users on my second LFS build
On 1/18/07, Nadav Vinik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "The Book excludes any recommendations about which pack'man' to use,
> which doesn't make it easy for newbies"
>
> It is the most complicate from the others.
By far.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: htt
"The drawback is that you have to manually set files suid root (but on
the other hand, it gives you more control over packages - you decide
what should be suid) and that some packages need some tweaking, as
their install process behaves badly."
And this is what you recommend to newbies?
"The Book
Benedikt Schmitt wrote:
> Which strategy do you recommend/what are the pro/cons of this choice?
I recommend user-based package management - it keeps things tidy,
in separate directories, easy to upgrade (for each user, the commands
used to build/install it are stored in the user's .bash_history),
29 matches
Mail list logo