On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 22:22 +0900, 包乾 wrote:
> thanks for your reply!
> I recompile the kernel, actually I copied the kernel source from my
> host system(slackware) and everything works fine now!
> So the problem narrowed down to my kernel configuration, I would
> continue dig into that.
> ThX!
I
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 05:51 -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
> On 02/19/14 05:46, loki wrote:
> > Heya,
> >
> > just wanted to ask what happened to CLFS?
> >
> > On the address http://www.cross-lfs.org/ I'm getting a Domain for Sale.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> Nothing happened to it, it's where
On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 03:44 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> For a safer system, limiting privileges is a good idea. To shut
> down a *desktop* box, I'm happy using a hack to let a user run
> 'shutdown' - but I'm the only user of those machines, and I can
> only run the user shutdown script from a
On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 20:05 -0800, John Black wrote:
> I'm confused about kernel configuration. What about I leave it by default
> then compile it, it is fine for creating live cd at later time?
>
> ___
I would look at some of the kernel configurations from mainline
distributions. In fact, the k
On 5/16/2013 2:08 PM, alex lupu wrote:
>
> BTW, a "patch" is mostly in the eye of the beholder; some call many of
> them, "sed".
>
>
Cute, I like it.
Submitting sed scripts upstream though seems to be frowned upon, they
like patches.
I agree with the concept of minimal patches. I think over-pa
On 5/16/2013 1:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
*snip*
>
> Finally, there are philosophically no differences between a sed and a
> patch. Both have the same purpose--to enhance the user experience. We
> prefer using a sed because the changes made is more visible.
>
> -- Bruce
>
I prefer sed for mi
On 5/16/2013 12:03 AM, Stefan & Rebekka Wetter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in the lfs-book you need some patches. I wonder, why these patches are
> needed? Are the upstream-sources not able to be compiled without?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best Regards
> Stefan
>
The number of patches in LFS is very small compared to
On Sat, 2013-04-20 at 21:59 +1200, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 17:54 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > LFS doesn't use it. BLFS depends on who edited the page, and when.
> > We used not to use it, but then some of us were persuaded that it
> > would be in the new standard. Me, I like i
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 06:00 +0200, Armin K. wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 05:10 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am I correctly understanding that the filesystem philosophy of LFS/BLFS
> > is to not use /usr/libexec ??
> >
> > I don't need an explanat
Hi,
Am I correctly understanding that the filesystem philosophy of LFS/BLFS
is to not use /usr/libexec ??
I don't need an explanation as to why, I just want to know if that's
what has been adopted or not.
Thanks
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxf
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 17:15 -0500, William Harrington wrote:
*snip*
> > What went wrong in my build of coreutils?
> >
>
> This has been reported a bug a while ago:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2012-11/msg00172.html
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Harrington
>
Ah, thanks, OK -
Hi, lfs 7.3
uname -i and uname -p both return "unknown" which is causing some issues
on software I'm trying to build.
On other distributions - that return x86_64
uname -m however does return x86_64
What went wrong in my build of coreutils?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-s
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 18:18 -0430, Gabriel Formica wrote:
> Hello, I just booted up into my linux from scratch. It seems to be ok,
> but I'm having some troubles with the network interface.
> When my linux from scratch begins, it shows:
>
>
> Bringing up the eth0 interface
> Adding IPv4 address -
On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 14:58 -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 16:50 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> *snip*
> >
> > Every distro wants to do their own thing. Most will automatically
> > change from what you have to their custom eye candy.
> >
> >
On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 16:50 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
*snip*
>
> Every distro wants to do their own thing. Most will automatically
> change from what you have to their custom eye candy.
>
> You really have a couple of choices. One choice is to install grub2 per
> the LFS instructions. Then e
Going through LFS 7.3 and about ready to make it bootable but Fedora's
grub is giving me issue.
The plan was to share /boot between LFS and Fedora 18 as I have done in
the past (been awhile since I ran LFS - LFS 4.something last time I
think). Hell, I've shared /boot between Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 11:31 +0200, Niels Terp wrote:
>
*snip*
>
> Hi Alice,
>
> Have you followed the section 7.3. Customizing the /etc/hosts File ? You
> will need to set up a 'hosts' file where you list the parameters for your
> card(s).
>
> Here is a copy of mine, hope that can give you an i
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 01:51 -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
> Build Host: Fedora 18 64-bit
> Hardware: Home Built, Asus P8Z68-V Pro/Gen3
>
> It has on-board ethernet and a wireless PCI card I installed.
> I've never tested the onboard ethernet but it is seen by Fedora, though
>
Build Host: Fedora 18 64-bit
Hardware: Home Built, Asus P8Z68-V Pro/Gen3
It has on-board ethernet and a wireless PCI card I installed.
I've never tested the onboard ethernet but it is seen by Fedora, though
noted Cable Unplugged. That is going to be the normal connection.
When I cat the udev 70-p
19 matches
Mail list logo
