Hi Bruce:
== Alex:
I was at kernel 3.6.1 and udev 182
Life was beautiful.
I upgraded to udev 195.
'/dev/pts' is no longer created.
Same situation if now I go to 3.6.6 or 3.6.7.
Strangely, I my new machine that I'm trying to get it off the ground
'dev/pts' has also disappeared (kernel 3.6.7 BUT ude
alex lupu wrote:
> I was at kernel 3.6.1 and udev 182
>
> Life was beautiful.
> I upgraded to udev 195.
> '/dev/pts' is no longer created.
> Same situation if now I go to 3.6.6 or 3.6.7.
> Strangely, I my new machine that I'm trying to get it off the ground
> 'dev/pts' has also disappeared (kernel
Hi Ken:
Thank you very much, considering that it must be
cold and late out there!
> Looking at last week's 3.7-rc, I suggest
> config UNIX98_PTYS
>bool "Unix98 PTY support" if EXPERT
> default y
> Looks as if you need to select Expert mode (i.e. 'embedded') to
> deselect it - unle
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:06:38PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> Drive organization is really a personal preference item.
>>
> Agreed, but I commented because I feel people often read the
> minimalist suggestions in the book, and then make things harder for
> themselves in t
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:31:14PM -0500, alex lupu wrote:
> I was at kernel 3.6.1 and udev 182
>
> Life was beautiful.
> I upgraded to udev 195.
> '/dev/pts' is no longer created.
> Same situation if now I go to 3.6.6 or 3.6.7.
> Strangely, I my new machine that I'm trying to get it off the groun
I was at kernel 3.6.1 and udev 182
Life was beautiful.
I upgraded to udev 195.
'/dev/pts' is no longer created.
Same situation if now I go to 3.6.6 or 3.6.7.
Strangely, I my new machine that I'm trying to get it off the ground
'dev/pts' has also disappeared (kernel 3.6.7 BUT udev 182!).
Before tr
> Reading back, my sentence could be misleading, so, to be clear, I was
> referring LO to build size, not install size (Bruce just pointed out
> this, but I feel it needed to be close to my own statement). For install
> size, it is about the same as OpenJDK, over 440MB, build size also the
> same o
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:40:26PM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> --- Em ter, 20/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>
> > De: Ken Moffat
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:36:04PM
> > -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> > >
> > > LibreOffice takes over 7GB in some machines/versions.
> > For builds, I
--- Em ter, 20/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> De: Ken Moffat
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-support] A startup quesion
> Para: "LFS Support List"
> Data: Terça-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2012, 19:42
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:36:04PM
> -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > For some reasons, I have reach
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:06:38PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Drive organization is really a personal preference item.
>
Agreed, but I commented because I feel people often read the
minimalist suggestions in the book, and then make things harder for
themselves in the future.
> There is a big
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:36:04PM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
> For some reasons, I have reached more than 10GB, so I prefer 20GB
> partition size. Also, remember that some packages use many GB,
> LibreOffice takes over 7GB in some machines/versions. For builds, I use
> a ~/tmp directory
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> --- Em ter, 20/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>
>> De: Ken Moffat
>> Assunto: Re: [lfs-support] A startup quesion
>> Para: "LFS Support List"
>> Data: Terça-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2012, 16:19
>
>> (ii). a couple more partitions of the same 10GB size - this
>> will
>> al
--- Em ter, 20/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> De: Ken Moffat
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-support] A startup quesion
> Para: "LFS Support List"
> Data: Terça-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2012, 16:19
> (ii). a couple more partitions of the same 10GB size - this
> will
> allow you to build LFS+BLFS in one of the
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:56:25AM -0800, Li, David wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to start building LFS. I have a x86_64 AMD machine. From what I
> read in the book, it seems 32 bit environment is preferred. So I want to
> confirm with the list that the followings are OK to start with.
>
>
>
Li, David wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to start building LFS. I have a x86_64 AMD machine. From
> what I read in the book, it seems 32 bit environment is preferred.
> So I want to confirm with the list that the followings are OK to
> start with.
>
> 1. Install a 32 bit Fedora 16 as the build
Hi,
I would like to start building LFS. I have a x86_64 AMD machine. From what I
read in the book, it seems 32 bit environment is preferred. So I want to
confirm with the list that the followings are OK to start with.
1. Install a 32 bit Fedora 16 as the build environment
2. Leav
16 matches
Mail list logo
