Re: An idea for a new development model
From: Alexander E. Patrakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Walter Barnes wrote: Has anyone considered using unionfs to create a fake root? Yes. The 6.1 CD was based on unionfs. Unionfs produces kernel oops if stress-tested or on SMP. Also, glibc testsuite doesn't pass if /tmp is on unionfs. So this package is now blacklisted. Well that's not good. But thanks for the heads up. I was working on a package manager based on unionfs; I'll have to go back and rethink whether or not it's worth the effort. Maybe aufs performs better. As for the glibc issue, I can try restricting use of unionfs/aufs to 'make install'. It's only really needed for that anyway. Thanks, Walter Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Thanks to devs
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:27:40 -0500 Mike Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip work. I think one of the things that makes LFS so nice is inclusion of configuration files/info needed to make some of the software packages work. For the most part, getting the build configuration and actual build to work is fairly easy. It's actually getting the software configuration stuff to make the software work that's usually the PITA. Thanks for including that stuff, it sure is a time saver. It sure is. A known working example cuts right through all the turgid prose or two word hints that most package devs thinks is documentation! Oh, BTW, the system I'm putting together is a basic HTTP server with firewalling, etc.. Just to give you an idea, the normal distro I use on that is Ubuntu. The time from pressing the power button to when I get a login prompt using Ubuntu is ~2:45, with LFS, that time drops to ~20 seconds on the exact same piece of hardware. A lot of that is Upstart, but not all of it. LFS's bootscripts are minimalist, but that's what you want if you are going to read and understand 'em - then write your own. (There'll be some nutter along shortly suggesting that LFS moves to Upstart soon, it should be called SlowStart!) Good note Mike, mirrors my feelings exactly. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3/Hints
@Luca From: Luca Subject: LFS-6.3/Hints Hello. I'm thinking about writing a Hint to build a XEN-Lfs (when I'll be back) since, at least, there's one user who asked me how to build it --- lurkmode = false Sorry to split the thread. Gmane tells me it is down for maintenace. ... I am interested in trying LFS as Xen Dom0, and would want to base it on 6.3 - watching in anticipation :-) lurkmode = true Thanks, Peter -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Broken symlinks in Cups
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Which book are you referring to, Chris? The development (SVN) book
already has commands to take care of the symlinks. Perhaps you just
overlooked them?
Oops, I see it now, and yes, I was using the dev book. Funny, it was
*after* I sent that message (when I was already on my way to work so it
was too late to check) that I thought I should triple-check the book's
instructions to make sure I didn't simply miss something, although I was
pretty sure I did when I ran the commands it gives...
OK, now I just double-checked my command history and I *did* run all the
commands in that section...I just took a closer look and it seems that
the cause is that the first gunzip command is failing, which (thanks to
the construct) prevents the rest (which handles those symlinks) not
to be run. Here's the key line from the output that is causing the
problem...
gzip: /usr/share/man/man8/cups-.8.gz: No such file or directory
Apparently the gunzip command is looking for a cups-.8.gz that does
not exist. I think this is due to an extra , in this line...
8/{accept,cups{d,addsmb,enable,-{deviced,driverd,lpd,polld,}},\
If I just remove the comma right after polld the whole thing works fine.
Sorry for not double-checking this earlier...but hopefully this time I
actually did find a real problem...or did I just miss something again
and waste even more of your time?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3/Hints
- Original Message - From: Peter Ennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:10 PM Subject: Re: LFS-6.3/Hints ... I am interested in trying LFS as Xen Dom0, and would want to base it on 6.3 Thanks, Peter Hello Peter. Well, it seems I have to change a line: there are two users interested :) I be back in two weeks and I'll start testing XEN-Lfs using Xen-4.0.0 and Lfs-6.3 as dom0 and domU then write the hint. Luca -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
