Rumor has it that Doug Ronne may have mentioned these words:
On 8/12/05, Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, which way is the 'right' way? I'd be happy to go thru and fix the
> 'wrong' ones to make everything consistent...
My understanding was LFS packages went in sources and non-lfs packages
went in the tree to keep sources an lfs directory.
Ah, OK... I guess the fact that some of the versions that the LiveCD
makefiles were trying to download were slightly different than the actual
packages on the LiveCD kinda threw me at first (and filled the
unionfs-based root filesystem), so I just whacked the /sources directory &
mapped it to the hard drive. As the directory was now empty, it started
downloading 'em all.
In hindsight, I should have made the /mnt/lfs/sources directory first,
copied all of the available packages from the /sources directory, *then*
whacked the /sources directory & symlinked it to /mnt/lfs/sources.
Ah well... they don't call me the Village Idiot for nuthin'...
;^>
>If that is a stable version, you can probably just use that one for your
>livecd. Just change the VER part in the Makefile.
that is what I did. Worked fine.
I moved the tarball I found into the package directory structure, and it
worked fine... but the fact that some packages were built from a different
directory structure threw me for a loop there.
I can still set up the 'download only' rules in the Makefile if
anyone else would find them useful.... and this is all a good learning
experience for me so I could make other changes for the possibility of a
6.1-3 LiveCD...
Thanks,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
P.S. As always, I'll keep y'all posted on my progress...
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_±±_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(©||®) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
