Re: grammar correction chap 4.1 LFS 6.6
stosss wrote: On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mike Lynch mjly...@mchsi.com wrote: stosss wrote: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM, stosss sto...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Brians Emeritus Professor of English Washington State University If the word following begins with a vowel sound, the word you want is “an”: “Have an apple, Adam.” If the word following begins with a consonant, but begins with a vowel sound, you still need “an”: “An X-ray will show whether there's a worm in it.” It is nonstandard and often considered sloppy speech to utter an “uh” sound in such cases. The same rule applies to initialisms like “NGO” (for “non-governmental organization”). Because the letter N is pronounced “en,” it’s “an NGO” but when the phrase is spoken instead of the abbreviation, it’s “a non-governmental organization.” When the following word definitely begins with a consonant sound, you need “a”: “A snake told me apples enhance mental abilities.” Note that the letter Y can be either a vowel or a consonant. Although it is sounded as a vowel in words like “pretty,” at the beginning of words it is usually sounded as a consonant, as in “a yolk.” Words beginning with the letter U which start with a Y consonant sound like “university” and “utensil” also take an “a”: “a university” and “a utensil.” But when an initial U has a vowel sound, the word is preceded by “an”: it’s “an umpire,” “an umbrella,” and “an understanding.” As found at: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/a.html also see: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors and http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html The articles a, an and the can be dropped when there is only one. You are doing an su to root implies there are more su to root commands. There is only one su, switch user or super user command. You are doing the su to root or you are doing su to root, these are correct but a su and an su are incorrect. As I read it, the second paragraph above of Paul Brians supports the use of an over a because su is an initialism where the first sound is es. a and an are general. an apple means any apple. the apple means one specific apple. Because there is only one su command the an does not work because of the context. But apple is word and su is an initialism. Paul Brians' guide states specific rules when it comes to initialisms. Those rules are related to the sound of the first letter of the initialism not the context in which it is used. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: grammar correction chap 4.1 LFS 6.6
stosss wrote: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM, stosss sto...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Brians Emeritus Professor of English Washington State University If the word following begins with a vowel sound, the word you want is “an”: “Have an apple, Adam.” If the word following begins with a consonant, but begins with a vowel sound, you still need “an”: “An X-ray will show whether there's a worm in it.” It is nonstandard and often considered sloppy speech to utter an “uh” sound in such cases. The same rule applies to initialisms like “NGO” (for “non-governmental organization”). Because the letter N is pronounced “en,” it’s “an NGO” but when the phrase is spoken instead of the abbreviation, it’s “a non-governmental organization.” When the following word definitely begins with a consonant sound, you need “a”: “A snake told me apples enhance mental abilities.” Note that the letter Y can be either a vowel or a consonant. Although it is sounded as a vowel in words like “pretty,” at the beginning of words it is usually sounded as a consonant, as in “a yolk.” Words beginning with the letter U which start with a Y consonant sound like “university” and “utensil” also take an “a”: “a university” and “a utensil.” But when an initial U has a vowel sound, the word is preceded by “an”: it’s “an umpire,” “an umbrella,” and “an understanding.” As found at: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/a.html also see: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors and http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html The articles a, an and the can be dropped when there is only one. You are doing an su to root implies there are more su to root commands. There is only one su, switch user or super user command. You are doing the su to root or you are doing su to root, these are correct but a su and an su are incorrect. As I read it, the second paragraph above of Paul Brians supports the use of an over a because su is an initialism where the first sound is es. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: RE： fsck.ext3:devices or resource bu sy while try to open /dev/sdb
The message is usually seen when attempting to dismount a drive that has a file that is still open by a process. You can usually use lsof and ps to figure out which process has a file open on the device. kevin631012 wrote: Hi All, I got a problem as title . what I am thinking is what kind of driver will cause system halt like this ? because I turn on a lot of options in Kernel for sake of debugging boot issue . ___ 您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！ http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cp foo{,.bak} not always supported
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:30PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
broken on Ubuntu-8.04
This was on expect instructions
cp configure{,.bak}
cp: missing destination file operand after `configure{,.bak}'
Try `cp --help' for more information.
Could it not be prefered to build sed at the beginning, so it is always safe
to use sed -i?
That's what DYI do and what have been done on ipcop-1.4.
Anyway splitting in two instructions (one cp, one sed) could be the most
portable way.
This construction is actually used on expect, gcc pass2, gzip, perl (in
perl, with mv, not cp)
Gilles
Or just require people to use a sane shell ?
ĸen
My thought as well. Isn't this a shell feature that is there if a sane
shell is used?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LiveCD or No LiveCD?
My 2 cents is going to have to go towards keeping the LiveCD. I find it very useful to use for building LFS on target systems that don't already have a Linux distro installed. Several have suggested that a liveCD from a different distro could be used but I suspect finding one with all of the development tools needed may be more difficult than expected. This is because most other liveCD are intended to provide all of the software needed so they can be used as is for internet, etc. These other liveCD are packed with browsers, word processing software, and the like rather than development tools. The biggest advantage to the liveCD is the fact that it does what it was intended to do. It provides the set of tools needed and eliminates the need to have a version of linux installed on the target. I've been using linux since the early 90's and know my way around it pretty well. But, building the whole works from source had always eluded me just because I didn't have the time to spend to go figure it out. Then I ran across LFS and, unfortunately when I made my first attempt to follow the book I did so using an Ubuntu distro and ran into lots of problems but did get things working. Finally, I tried the liveCD and have been in love with it ever since. So, bottom line, if there is some way to keep it around, I'd vote for doing so. Mike -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Thanks to devs
Randy McMurchy wrote: Mike Lynch wrote these words on 08/16/07 21:06 CST: I agree, configuring it for high security SNMPv3 with ACL's is not trivial. I could probably provide some configurations for SNMPv1 that, while they wouldn't be appropriate for high security installations, would at least make it work enough to be able to see that it does, in fact, work. Would that do or were you looking for more sophisticated configuration? I'm looking for anything that could be used by the average person wanting to use SNMP for what it was intended to be used for. I realize that the previous paragraph is vague, so anything you could provide that would *work*, I would test and put in the book if it provides the capability that SNMP should provide. We can work off-line if necessary, to work out the details. Also, we should probably keep the discussion at BLFS-Dev, as this is far beyond LFS. Mike, thanks for your interest, and I hope to see you write in some additional info to keep this subject alive. Sorry it took so long, I got real busy for a bit. I have the config files ready for this. Where/who should I send them too? I'll include some simple instructions on where to place them and how to use snmpwalk to retrieve some info from the machine running the SNMP daemon. Mike -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Thanks to devs
I've been working with *nix since the early 80's and have been using linux since the early 90's. It's only been during the past 5 years or so that I have been using linux exclusively. I've always been curious as to what it takes to create a linux system from the sources and never really had the time to devote to figuring out all of the steps needed. I just wanted to give a quick thanks to the developers of LFS because not only did it answer all of my questions about how to do it, actual step by step instructions were included. I went through the LFS book manually the first time and even though the process was slow, the entire thing worked and, better yet, the end product worked. Next I decided to give jhalfs a try and lo and behold, other than a couple of weird problems that occurred as a result of oddities with the host system I chose, it too worked and the result was a working system. I've spent the last couple of days trying out the LiveCD/jhalfs method, and, like all of the other methods, it just worked. I now feel I have a very good understanding of the whole process of putting together a complete linux system from sources. I just wanted to thank the devs for all of the work they do and the quality of the 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. 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. Bravo guys. Keep up the good work. It's appreciated. I did install some of the stuff from BLFS that I needed (apache, iptables, etc.). The only thing I had to get my self and figure out how to configure and compile was NET-SNMP. That would probably be the only thing I might suggest adding to the BLFS stuff. Mike -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Thanks to devs
Randy McMurchy wrote: snip Thanks for writing in. I too use it, as do thousands (perhaps millions by now) of other people. Some in mission-critical installations. It's probably time that BLFS put it in the book. However, configuration of such a package is a stiff thing. You must do a bunch to get results that are meaningful. I'm not sure there is anyone on staff that can do this. Mike, would you be willing to provide a default setup that we could use? Pretty much everything I sell goes into high security or mission critical locations. Some won't consider units without SNMP, for others, it's just a selling point even if it's not used (firewall it if your really worried). I agree, configuring it for high security SNMPv3 with ACL's is not trivial. I could probably provide some configurations for SNMPv1 that, while they wouldn't be appropriate for high security installations, would at least make it work enough to be able to see that it does, in fact, work. Would that do or were you looking for more sophisticated configuration? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: An idea for a new development model
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Greg Schafer wrote: Pacman rules!!! :-) Oops, sorry, back on topic. I guess Slackware scripts could be adapted judging by the content at Jaguar Linux: http://www.jaguarlinux.com/ Thanks for the link. Indeed, it looks that a lot of work has been already done for us. If anyone is interested and/or familiar with Solaris' package management system, I have written a set of scripts that implement that package manager on linux (*NIX really). You are more than welcome to them if you want them. There are 4 scripts to it and they are so generic that they will even work on older QNX systems. One of the nice things about the Solaris package manager is that *every* file installed is registered in a database (just an CSV file so no DB software like SQL needed) so it's easy to find out what has been installed. Package removal references the database to remove files. Furthermore, more than one package or more than one instance of the same package can claim ownership of a file such that removal of a file will not occur until the last package claiming ownership of a file is removed. During removal, only registered files are removed so any user created files remain. Registered directories are only removed if they are empty so if the user adds files to a registered directory after installing a package, package removal will not delete them because they are not registered and the registered directory will then not be removed. This prevents loss of user generated configuration files and the like. The package manager can solicit information from the user if needed. This can be for things like agreeing to license agreements or allowing the user to select his desired installation directories, etc. The nice thing is it's really easy to use in terms of package installation or removal. Package installation is: ./pkgadd -d . Package removal is pkgrm pkgname Well, this got much more long winded than I intended. If interested or you want more info, let me know. Or, if you happen to have access to the Solaris package manager documentation, take a look at it. Everything in it is implemented in my script based version. Mike -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
