Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/09/10 18:32 CST:
>
>> Note: I don't remember why I removed this section several years ago,
>> but I just added it back in tonight.
>
> Wasn't it because the same exact page was ported over to LFS, and now
> that you've included it in BL
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 12:03 -0500, Mikie wrote:
> Part of the reason it does is because it is too overwhelming to the
> average crowd of Linux users.
> Too much time is wasted in fixing the host and getting thru CH 5 to get
> an independent tool chain.
And we say, yet again, that LFS is not writte
On 01/09/2010 06:37 PM, Hamish West wrote:
>
> The solutions for binutils was i just needed to change the privileges
> and ownership of some folder, Ive forgotten which one, i think it was
> $LFS/tools.
>
> Hamish,
No it wasn't. First, the only ownership/permissions that need to be
changed are wh
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/09/10 18:32 CST:
> Note: I don't remember why I removed this section several years ago,
> but I just added it back in tonight.
Wasn't it because the same exact page was ported over to LFS, and now
that you've included it in BLFS as well, it seems redundant.
T
Abhinav Chaturvedi wrote:
> So I guess I am looking for someone to tell me - perhaps reassure me - that
> I could build my own shareable (on a disk) distro that could compete
> (outperform?) standard linux distros. I understand I would need to do other
> stuff - like arrange for an installer. But
The solution is exactly the same as for the Binutils problem (though you didn't
say how you fixed the Binutils issue, and if you are having problems with GCC
now, you apparently didn't do what you were supposed to with Binutils either).
Read page 5.3 *very* carefully. One thing it says is that
Hi all,
I am not joining this thread to state my position. I am a first time LFS
user and I recently managed to compile my own kernel. And now I am working
on BLFS. Am I glad that I persisted with LFS? I sure am... Linux does not
look that intimidating anymore. I can see that it is beautifully put
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:48:42PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> jmsc...@setex.ipcallback.com wrote:
>
> > i see the error
> >
> >util_run_program: 'write_net_rules'
> >util_run_program: '/lib/udev/write_net_rules' (stderr) 'missing
> > $INTERFACE'
> >util_run_program: 'write_net_rules
jmsc...@setex.ipcallback.com wrote:
> i see the error
>
>util_run_program: 'write_net_rules'
>util_run_program: '/lib/udev/write_net_rules' (stderr) 'missing $INTERFACE'
>util_run_program: 'write_net_rules' returned with exitcode 1
>
> amongst the voluminous output.
>
> i tried expo
Mikie wrote these words on 01/09/10 11:03 CST:
> [K. Mike Bradley] I have built LFS twice successfully.
> I don't think I learned a damned thing each time.
Then obviously LFS is not for you.
> I am a professional trainer and I know how to teach better than most
> trainers.
> LFS fails to teach.
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 12:04:41PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> jmsc...@setex.ipcallback.com wrote:
> >
> >> If you do
> >>INTERFACE=eth0 udevadm test --action=add eth0
> >>
> >> Do you get anything?
> >>
> > now i'm seeing the error
> >
> > unable to open device '/syseth0'
>
> My fault.
jmsc...@setex.ipcallback.com wrote:
>
>> If you do
>>INTERFACE=eth0 udevadm test --action=add eth0
>>
>> Do you get anything?
>>
> now i'm seeing the error
>
> unable to open device '/syseth0'
My fault. It should be
INTERFACE=/sys/class/net/eth0 udevadm test --action=add /sys/class/ne
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:36:19PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> jmsc...@setex.ipcallback.com wrote:
>
> > Nope, appears that /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules is missing.
> > I see many but no obvious errors in the output of of the 'for' loop in the
> > blurb in paragraph 7.13.1:
> >
> >
On 1/9/10 9:03 AM, "Mikie" wrote:
>
> I am a professional trainer and I know how to teach better than most
> trainers.
> LFS fails to teach.
Well, given that it's in its sixth major version and has spawned a sort of
universe of sister projects, it seems to have taught _someone_ _something_
or ot
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Mikie wrote:
> I'm one that stands on the same side of the fence as Bruce (and every
> other contributor to this thread, I believe) in that the focus of the
> book is meant to be educational, and a minimum knowledge of Linux/Unix
> is expected. Total newbies need no
I'm one that stands on the same side of the fence as Bruce (and every
other contributor to this thread, I believe) in that the focus of the
book is meant to be educational, and a minimum knowledge of Linux/Unix
is expected. Total newbies need not apply. :-)
[K. Mike Bradley] Agreed
If you don't
16 matches
Mail list logo
