On Wed, Mar 14, at 09:49 Wilco Beekhuizen wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion but I'm not using bash_completion.
Fortunately I found the solution. In 6.28 of the LFS book
--with-installed-readline is passed to the configure script. Without
this switch, tab completion seems to work fine again.
I
On Κυρ, Μάρ 11, at 01:32 Dan Nicholson wrote:
I got the same problems when playing around with dash, but I'd never
given it much thought. I think this is a good point and I'm gonna
change all my shell setting files to not export PS1.
Exporting PS1 using bash as my login shell,made my zsh
A small correction to the second patch.
Index: postlfs/config/profile.xml
===
--- postlfs/config/profile.xml (revision 6665)
+++ postlfs/config/profile.xml (working copy)
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
export HISTSIZE=1000
export
This is getting bigger than I initially thought but personally I like it
this way.
If any of you with enough free time and some knowledge in vim internals,
please review it.
In any case I will try to open a ticket in the next days.
Index: postlfs/config/vimrc.xml
On Tue, Feb 20, at 01:55 Dan Nicholson wrote:
The overhead is the same reason why people are adamant about coding in
C after all these years despite the availability of more powerful and
intuitive languages.
Hmm...I don't know.As someone said/wrote today...with the current computer
specs,
On Sat, Feb 10, at 10:05 Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
For what is worth I am running these tests under a system with
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070108 (prerelease)
and glibc from cvs
(GNU libc) 2.5.90
but I don't know if that makes a difference,I think not.
I also run the tests,under an old
On Σαβ, Φεβ 10, at 10:46 Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 2/10/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All I know (from another source but me,A.J.Mechelynck),is that some
warnings are
common and unavoidable,such as those that coming when you enable the various
interfaces e.g perl
On Τρι, Φεβ 06, at 12:08 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/06/07 00:02 CST:
Could these permissions vary with a user's umask? When entering the
chroot, we blow away the user's environment, but is the umask inherited?
Not sure, but because these permission issues
On Τρι, Φεβ 06, at 08:24 Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
On Τρι, Φεβ 06, at 12:08 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/06/07 00:02 CST:
Could these permissions vary with a user's umask? When entering the
chroot, we blow away the user's environment, but is the umask
On Sat, Jan 13, at 05:39 Joe Ciccone wrote:
Sshd in order to set up the authentication correctly,uses xauth,
but is looking for the xauth binary in (/usr/X11R6/bin),which obviously
is a problem for those who install X in /usr (the majority I guess).
As a result I was receiving
On Sun, Jan 14, at 07:26 TheOldFellow wrote:
Declan Naughton wrote:
irc has not been installed on the new server yet. Its another
opportunity for me to learn something new. :(
Why don't we just use Freenode? There is an established #lfs channel
there. Do we really need to run our own
On Σαβ, Ιαν 13, at 11:10 Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 1/13/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am now proposing that Alexander Patrakov have his LFS commit priv's
restored, so that he may make updates as he feels necessary. There is
a dire need for help in LFS (just look how many
On Σαβ, Ιαν 13, at 11:15 Dan Nicholson wrote:
I've been using openssh-4.5p1 for about a week now. I don't do
anything really fancy with port forwarding, but I do use it quite a
bit with PAM, X11 forwarding and pub key authentication. It's been
working fine so far.
Dan a simple
On Sat, Dec 16, at 01:30 Gerard Beekmans wrote:
This is kind of annoying because my filter is set on the To: lfs-book.
I don't know the Trac settings at all, so I'm no help there.
Must be a byproduct of the new version of Trac. Until tht's figured out,
I suggest using a different filter
On Thu, Dec 21, at 12:12 Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, at 01:30 Gerard Beekmans wrote:
This is kind of annoying because my filter is set on the To: lfs-book.
I don't know the Trac settings at all, so I'm no help there.
Must be a byproduct of the new version of Trac. Until
The following note is absolute.
The Linux kernel is updated relatively often, many times due to
discoveries of security vulnerabilities. The latest available 2.6.17.x
kernel version should be used, unless the errata page says otherwise. Do
not use version 2.6.18 or later kernels due to
On Thu, Sep 14, at 11:36 Dan Nicholson wrote:
One common test failure, tst-cancel24 in glibc was due to me forgetting
that I need to add /tools/lib/libstdc++.so{,.6} to the Essential
Symlinks.
I saw your commit too late so I had the same failure.
Anyway in a summary,I had only the usual
On Thu, Sep 14, at 11:36 Dan Nicholson wrote:
If anyone wants to see the diff as it stands, I've placed it here:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/glibc-2.4.diff
Hi Dan,and thanks for the glibc upgrade. :)
I finished a fresh build based on your patch and apart from a
On Fri, Sep 15, at 11:19 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Due to personal reasons, I am resigning as the BLFS Project Leader.
I want to thank all the past contributors to BLFS in making the book the
wonderful resource that it is.
I will take the opportunity to thank you,Bruce,for all your job you have
On Sun, Aug 06, at 10:16 Matthew Burgess wrote:
snip
One less patch to worry.
Alexander's vim-7.0-spellfile-1.patch was accepted by Bram (patch 7.0.076).
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Κυρ, Αύγ 06, at 10:16 Matthew Burgess wrote:
SNIP
Excellent job Matthew and a very good idea.
I believe we all agree with your point,that 17 patches are very high number
for the LFS standards.
By the way,and with this chance.
I believe the LFS projects needs a man (or perhaps better: A very
On Sun, Jul 09, at 07:22 Jim Gifford wrote:
I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by
hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus
gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle.
Sorry to leave my cave for a second but I have also to
On Sun, May 28, at 04:59:14 Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
I propose the creation of a new udev/bootscript/kernel/doc team.
I nominate Alexander Patrakov as the new Leader of this project,
and also Dan Nicholson, DJ Lucas, Ken Moffat as members of the team.
Adding Nathan Coulson in the team
On Mon, May 29, at 06:48:42 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Who put you in charge of something as important as changing the
fundamental way things are done? You gotta be kidding. You are
going to call for a vote during a holiday weekend and end it
during that same holiday weekend. Totally
On Sun, May 28, at 07:04:20 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
perhaps a new book with any relative info that has to do with:
a.'Handling Devices' (udev)
b.'Boot process' (init schemes,bootscripts,bootmanager,etc)
c.'Automounting Devices'
d.'Volumes,raid etc...'
e
On Sun, May 28, at 09:23:27 Randy McMurchy wrote:
You cannot expect to get realistic or meaningful responses until you
determine and specify:
1. What role does this team take?
2. What are they responsible for?
3. Why do we need it?
4. What is different now that hasn't been in the past
On Sun, May 28, at 05:47:48 Ag Hatzimanikas wrote:
Whoops a small mistake ,fixed.
#---+
a.'Handling Devises' (udev)
b.'Boot process' (init schemes,bootscripts,bootmanager,etc)
c.'Automounting Devises,'
d.'Volumes, raid, Partitiong
On Sun, May 28, at 08:43:54 Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the behavior of the leaders of both
LFS and CLFS in this matter. Where is the willingness to *work* with
each other?
just an example to backup your thought.
The total absence of CLFS issues in BLFS.
--
On Sun, May 28, at 10:20:11 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:15 CST:
The total absence of CLFS issues in BLFS.
You are flat wrong here. It has been explained why BLFS cannot
support CLFS issues in the book.
Then saw me the link to the desired info
On Sun, May 28, at 10:39:07 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Ag Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 05/28/06 10:29 CST:
Then saw me the link to the desired info,
If you don't,can (you or Bruce) say to the rest of us (which we
don't know these reasons),why the CLFS issues are not covered by
BLFS
On Sun, May 28, at 11:36:56 Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 5/28/06, Ag Hatzimanikas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then let the CLFS team to contribute to the BLFS BOOK.
One chapter with 6-8 pages I think there will be enough for the start.
They can. That is why the wiki was created and links were
On Sat, May 27, at 07:32:49 Dan Nicholson wrote:
Should have replied before. I think it's worth it to be consistent.
As long as we have the commands (and you just did the work for me),
then we might as well put them in the book. Randy puts in long
instructions for rebuilding documentation
On Sat, May 27, at 10:39:19 Jim Gifford wrote:
I lot of people are afraid to say things because they will be attacked
on these lists, so they sit back and go with the flow. That's part of
the problem also, when your community is afraid to speak up there is
something wrong.
Please let's
33 matches
Mail list logo
