M.Canales.es wrote:
[...]
> To fix this bug all entities found in Xincluded files must be replaced by
> their values in the output, and that, for the BLFS sources, is equivalent to
> tell to xmllint that must to replace all entities in the output using:
>
> $ xmllint --nonet --xinclude --noent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello!
I wrote a small program that allows you to get a graphical
representation of the BLFS dependencies. (In fact, that's why I asked
how I could produce a working huge flattened XML file containing the
BLFS book; thanks to Manuel for the help.
ISO Codes doesn't list Python as being a requirement (optional or
required) but when I tried to install it without first installing
Python, this is what happened (it worked fine once I installed Python):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/iso-codes-0.49$ ./autogen.sh --prefix=/usr &&
make
configure.ac:
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
ISO Codes doesn't list Python as being a requirement (optional or
required) but when I tried to install it without first installing
Python, this is what happened (it worked fine once I installed Python):
Looks like it. From the Changelog:
* Now depend on python. Closes: #25
Jay D. McHugh wrote these words on 01/25/06 10:49 CST:
> ISO Codes doesn't list Python as being a requirement (optional or
> required) but when I tried to install it without first installing
> Python, this is what happened (it worked fine once I installed Python):
My bad. :-(
This version removed
Nico R. wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I wrote a small program that allows you to get a graphical
> representation of the BLFS dependencies. (In fact, that's why I asked
> how I could produce a working huge flattened XML file containing the
> BLFS book; thanks to Manuel for the help.)
Wow. That's some char
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/25/06 11:24 CST:
> When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
> didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, but we
> don't enable it by default. Is there a reason why?
>
> I would *recommend* :) that we change this. It
On 1/25/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
> didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, but we
> don't enable it by default. Is there a reason why?
Bruce, another option is to use xsvg that's in the cai
On 1/25/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/25/06 11:24 CST:
> > When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
> > didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, but we
> > don't enable it by default. Is there a rea
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/25/06 12:24 CST:
> Bruce, another option is to use xsvg that's in the cairo snapshots directory:
>
> http://cairographics.org/snapshots/
>
> It may depend on libsvg and/or libsvg-cairo, but I don't remember.
Additionally, the librsvg library (BLFS Chapter 9
On 1/25/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nico R. wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I wrote a small program that allows you to get a graphical
> > representation of the BLFS dependencies. (In fact, that's why I asked
> > how I could produce a working huge flattened XML file containing the
> > BL
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/25/06 12:30 CST:
> Not exactly. You left --enable-canvas on by default and that's not standard.
I thought of that after I had already sent the email. I was hoping
nobody would notice. :-)
However, as was discussed in the extensive discussion Jeremy referred
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:24:57 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
> didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, but we
> don't enable it by default. Is there a reason why?
>
> I would *recommend* :) th
On 1/25/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Additionally, the librsvg library (BLFS Chapter 9) includes a
> stand-alone tool for viewing SVG files, and can optionally create
> an SVG plugin for Moz/Firefox. I'm not sure how good the plugin
> works, though. I've never tried it.
I've h
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:27:11 +0100
"Nico R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote a small program that allows you to get a graphical
> representation of the BLFS dependencies.
Awesome! Thanks Nico.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.or
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:35:13 -0800
Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nico R. wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I wrote a small program that allows you to get a graphical
> > > representation of the BLFS dependencies. (In fact, that's wh
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:34:41 +
Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:24:57 -0600
> Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When I tried to look at Nico's svg file of dependencies, I found I
> > didn't have an svg viewer. There is one built into firefox, b
On 1/25/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just for today:
>
> http://www.langside.org.uk/images/blfs.svg
Wow, that's insane. Thanks, Richard. Consider it downloaded.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I don't mean this to be rude or condescending to you specifically,
> Bruce, but I just felt that most would heed the note to review the
> file and enable it if they wanted it. Just out of curiosity, did you
> not want it when you initially built Firefox?
Nah. You aren't b
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
According to what I read, most FF binaries come with svg built in. I
now think that it would be expected by most users and should be the default.
+1
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe:
Hi all,
This is directed to everyone who has write access to the /srv/www
area on Anduin.
Is there any reason why you had to pull out the .../files/BLFS
area. There were production files in there and now the book is broken.
Isn't this something that could have been discussed first?
--
Randy
r
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 01/25/06 14:51 CST:
> Is there any reason why you had to pull out the .../files/BLFS
> area. There were production files in there and now the book is broken.
Sorry for the noise. I am mistaken. If I could type, this wouldn't have
been necessary.
--
Randy
rml
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Go ahead and put into LFS whatever you think is appropriate and we'll
"do the right thing" afterward.
OK, this is now in LFS as of r7301.
I think you need to review the text:
I already did...honest :-)
"Package Management
23 matches
Mail list logo