Re: Website
On 3/17/2010 2:14 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Here's the site: http://dev.lightcube.us/~jhuntwork/LightCube/LFS-NG/ None of the links do anything, since it's just a mockup. -- JH Looks nice, but I don't think I'd put up a website these days that wasn't using a content management system (Drupal, Joomla, ...). Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Happy Birthday LFS
Gerard Beekmans wrote: The LFS project is almost nine years old. LFS 1.0 was released on December 16, 1999. That was the year I had moved to Canada, before my immigration was even finalized. Earlier that year I started on the LFS project. Gerard, I came across and built my first LFS system in early 2001 after having been a Unix (AIX) user and administrator since 1988. In a very short time after getting my first LFS box running, things that would have been very intimidating before became child's play. Early in 2002 I set up my third LFS box and it is still in continuous use today. Aside from the education value, it is my favorite distro for server use. I think that it would be great for some college to offer a class centered around LFS - start with a box full of parts and the LFS LiveCD at the beginning of the semester and end up with a LAMP server at the end, all built from source. Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Preparing for 6.3 Release
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: LiveCD. I simply have no possibility to fix all known bugs, so LFS 6.3 has to be released without the CD and should not mention it at all. I would see nothing wrong with using a LiveCD with is running an older version of LFS, but simply has the latest 6.3 sources from which to build the real LFS box. While it's nice for the two to be in the same ballpark, there's nothing that says the LiveCD needs to be running 6.3, just that it should be sufficient to build 6.3. Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS powering the Web...well in a manner of speaking
Gerard Beekmans wrote: LFS will be ultimately in charge of powering this conference. Not many are actually aware of this fact. The ISP that is providing the Internet connection is powered by LFS routers, mail servers, etc. The local on-site router for this conference is an LFS one as well. The box is sitting next to me, waiting to be deployed in a few days. I always said, year ago, LFS will one day take over the world ;) This is how it's gonna start. Start with the WWW guys themselves and go from there. Anyways, thought you guys might like to hear about that bit of news. Very cool news. It's been hard to judge the popularity of LFS, everyone I know that's ever heard of it knows about it from me telling them. Though it does appear on the Linux Distro timeline at: http://kde-files.org/CONTENT/content-files/44218-linuxdistrotimeline-7.2.png Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Perl security vulnerability
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: It's in the errata http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/stable/ It's also been added to trunk. :) -- JH For existing installations, is there a way to upgrade Perl using CPAN or is it a manual install? I'm just looking for the easiest approach, but I can certainly do it manually. Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)
Bruce Dubbs wrote: sash wrote: imho, there are no stupid questions. I used to think that. Then I taught a few years in a Community College. :) -- Bruce About 10 years ago I taught a course in C++ at a local community college. The class was meant for C programmers to learn C++ so C was a prerequisite. Apparently a local contract agency had seen C++ course, ignored the description, and signed up a few PL/1 programmers who needed C++ skills. Other students were laughing with me later that I didn't hide my look of shock well when on the second day I had a code fragment on the overhead and a guy in the back raised his hand and asked what int stood for. Because it was a non credit course and a significant percentage of the class was from the same agency I stuck with it, threw out my class plan, and figured they were my customers so as long as they were happy with what they learned I did my job. I got positive evaluations at the end. People just totally ignore prereqs... Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.1.1 Release Date?
Matthew Burgess wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Matt, we have a release date in mind? Barring no further issues cropping up, I'd like to get a pre-release out some time this week (the sooner the better). http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/buglist.cgi?product=Linux+From+Scratchtarget_milestone=6.1.1 shows two remaining bugs. The Glibc 2.3.4 patch (which solves the ssh issue) doesn't seem to be listed among the bugs - has it been included anyway? Thanks Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc bug in LFS-6.1 and its nALFS profile
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Tough question. The problem while Jeremy Huntwork was the project leader was that exactly the same versions of packages had to be used in the book and on the LiveCD (with the exception of ncurses because of xterm -lc compatibility needed for i18n purposes). I'd rather ask Justin to build the 6.1-4 CD with the following fixes: I still feel very strongly that released versions of the LiveCD should follow as closely as possible the LFS book that they are based upon. Their first and main purpose is to successfully build *that* version of the LFS book. Any other use is secondary. The change to ncurses on those CDs was negligible as far as how it affected the rest of the system, so I OK'd that change. ... -- JH I don't disagree with that philosophy JH. What I think should be the issue now is to determine how serious this GLIBC issue really is. If it is a serious security issue and therefore makes LFS 6.1 stable a defective release (don't mean this as bad work against the LFS group, just that a bad apple got into the pile), then I think it might be time for LFS 6.1.1 which the LiveCD could then track faithfully. Calling LFS 6.1 stable means that someone coming along and building it from the book (or LiveCD) believes they have a reasonable platform to build from. If they're going to run into trouble as soon as they try to put ssh on top of it (which is about the first thing that anyone would/should want to do with it or would you prefer telnet) they run into trouble, then I think that's worth a point release. It also sounds to me like there is still a problem in SSH in BLFS - from the sound of things this is a matter of whether the sshd gets an error code or a segfault for something it is doing incorrectly. The error code lets it get by and the segfault doesn't, but something is still not working as intended. This doesn't mean that glibc should be segfaulting and apparently should be upgraded or patched because this affects multiple programs, but either there's a bug in ssh or at least the BLFS instructions for ssh might need to change. Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc bug in LFS-6.1 and its nALFS profile
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Steve Prior wrote: Yes, my point exactly. If the bug is in LFS then *that* should be fixed and released, and in turn, the LiveCD can follow suit. Thanks for the detailed reply, Steve. -- JH My concern at the moment is a practical one. I have a machine I really want to get installed and operational with. Having a LiveCD with the fixed version means the difference between the install taking a couple of hours vs taking a whole weekend to do it manually. I'd rather not have the different LFS subprojects all pointing fingers at each other saying that it should get fixed there first - I get enough of that sort of thing at my day job. LFS is a small enough organization that we should be able to deal with something like this without getting bogged down. Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc bug in LFS-6.1 and its nALFS profile
Matthew Burgess wrote: Sorry for not being explicit enough. Basically, as you've already eluded to, LFS-6.1, the nALFS profiles that are based on it, and the LiveCD that is dependent on both LFS and nALFS all need to be fixed. LFS-6.1 obviously can't be fixed in situ, so an errata will be published. nALFS would then implement the fix(es) specified by all the errata that apply to LFS-6.1, and the LiveCD would pick up the fixed nALFS profiles and also itself be built with the fixes mentioned in any applicable errata. I believe that we shouldn't just have an errata section because then we have a dumping ground for errors and no way to really state that these new updates have been after those. So we shouldn't have LFS 6.1 + errata, we should have a LFS 6.1.1 stable release (because in a less perfect world there could even be a 6.1.2). This shouldn't require NEARLY as much testing/review as what is required to make a new stable release out of what is in 6.1 DEV. Steve -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
