Craig Jackson wrote:
>> Anyone else have ideas on how we can come together and get the project
>> moving ahead at a faster pace?
>>
>
> I just thought of the blood bank analogy. When someone offers to
> donate, the blood bank tells the donor what type of blood is most
> needed. If there is
>
> Anyone else have ideas on how we can come together and get the project
> moving ahead at a faster pace?
I just thought of the blood bank analogy. When someone offers to
donate, the blood bank tells the donor what type of blood is most
needed. If there is an area of BLFS that needs more work
CC'ing BLFS-Dev because that is where this discussion now belongs.
Please respond there.
Mike McCarty wrote these words on 07/21/09 14:17 CST:
> Thanks for the replies, Bruce and Randy. I am not complaining,
> merely observing. I did offer to do some help with the dev
> team, if nothing else then
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Mike McCarty wrote these words on 07/21/09 12:19 CST:
>>
>>> However, so far I haven't seen a coherent LFS + BLFS since 6.3.
>>> I didn't build BLFS yet, because I was waiting for a coherent
>>> 6.4 mate BLFS.
>> You may wait a long time. :-) We have v
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote these words on 07/21/09 12:19 CST:
>
>> However, so far I haven't seen a coherent LFS + BLFS since 6.3.
>> I didn't build BLFS yet, because I was waiting for a coherent
>> 6.4 mate BLFS.
>
> You may wait a long time. :-) We have very few contributors wi
Mike McCarty wrote these words on 07/21/09 12:19 CST:
> However, so far I haven't seen a coherent LFS + BLFS since 6.3.
> I didn't build BLFS yet, because I was waiting for a coherent
> 6.4 mate BLFS.
You may wait a long time. :-) We have very few contributors with
any spare time right now.
>
Trent Shea wrote:
[...]
> So, I guess the obvious issue would be the state of BLFS right now, and how
> dirty you want to get your hands ;)
Precisely. I've built 6.3 once, and 6.4 four times, but so far
not BLFS, as I'm waiting for it to catch up. I'd like to see a
coherent release of LFS + BLF
On Tuesday 21 July 2009 00:18:25 Jeremy Henty wrote:
> Are there any
> obvious issues with doing that or should it just work?
There will probably still be build issues related to gcc, and then header
files (usually it's just an extra include required,) at least while the BLFS
editors and variou
--- On Tue, 7/21/09, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> I use LFS 6.3. I also have an embryonic
> 6.4 system, but it looks as
> though I should just scrap that and go straight to
> 6.5. Are there any
> obvious issues with doing that or should it just work?
Using 6.3 as your base system on which to build
I am going to start LFS 6.4 and the thought crossed my mind of waiting for
6.5 which is just 1 or 2 weeks away, but then I was thinking that maybe I
should stick to the well tested and documented one until 6.5 is stable
enough...
But thats just my opinion, because is the first time i will build LF
I use LFS 6.3. I also have an embryonic 6.4 system, but it looks as
though I should just scrap that and go straight to 6.5. Are there any
obvious issues with doing that or should it just work?
Regards,
Jeremy Henty
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.
11 matches
Mail list logo
