On Wednesday 17 March 2010 22:07:19 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Marking something true when it's not used seems incorrect to me, even
> > if it doesn't hurt anything.
>
> It is true. The partition is one that is eligible to be dumped. Just
> because the only program that uses the field isn't instal
Trent Shea wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 21:16:30 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Trent Shea wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:25:16 Trent Shea wrote:
As dump/restore is not part of LFS or BLFS should this field be 0 for
all rows?
>> dump is a command that uses those fields. We do bui
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 21:16:30 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Trent Shea wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:25:16 Trent Shea wrote:
> >> As dump/restore is not part of LFS or BLFS should this field be 0 for
> >> all rows?
>
> dump is a command that uses those fields. We do build dump in LFS or
Trent Shea wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:25:16 Trent Shea wrote:
>> As dump/restore is not part of LFS or BLFS should this field be 0 for all
>> rows?
dump is a command that uses those fields. We do build dump in LFS or
BLFS, but someone might want to use that.
http://dump.sourceforge.
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:25:16 Trent Shea wrote:
> As dump/restore is not part of LFS or BLFS should this field be 0 for all
> rows?
CCing because I think it may be appropriate to modify the book?
The sample /etc/fstab in chapter 8 has the mount point listed as swap, the man
page says:
Th
Hi,
As dump/restore is not part of LFS or BLFS should this field be 0 for all rows?
--
Regards,
Trent.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
