Archaic wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:10:40PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>>(2) have the render script extract the needed ones from there and put
>>them into the blfs/downloads/svn/ directory. At the same time, it
>>could do the check for presence.
>
> I'm not following this part here. If
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:10:40PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> (2) have the render script extract the needed ones from there and put
> them into the blfs/downloads/svn/ directory. At the same time, it
> could do the check for presence.
I'm not following this part here. If (3) below is implemen
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 11/03/05 12:32 CST:
>
>
>>Hence, the difference between LFS and BLFS repos. Furthermore, to
>>sync them would be difficult (well, not really difficult, but time
>>consuming).
>
> Thinking about this, I believe the main reason the BLFS r
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 11/03/05 15:16 CST:
> .- The php-5.0.5-db43-1.patch patch is missing in the patches repo.
>
> .- The fop-0.20.5-jdk_1.5.0-1.patch is miss-named in the patches repo.
>
> Both should be fixed regardless if that stylesheet will be used or not.
I will fix these rig
El Jueves, 3 de Noviembre de 2005 20:34, M.Canales.es escribió:
> I will test soon it some fix is needed (most possible for the OOo patches)
I have ready the revised patches-script.xsl stylesheet to match current
BLFS-SVN, and work fine. But two issues has been catches testing it:
.- The php-5.
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 11/03/05 13:35 CST:
> This should be a non issue if there are in the official patches archive.
Trimming excess of the original message is good, however, this
message seems a bit overboard. I have no clue which message Jim
is responding to. :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi:
El Jueves, 3 de Noviembre de 2005 20:23, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> Thanks for the tip, Manuel. Another thing I now remember about having
> the BLFS repo is that a message is sent to -book if there is any
> patches missing or if one that is not referenced in the book exists
> in the repo.
Actuall
This should be a non issue if there are in the official patches archive.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 11/03/05 13:09 CST:
> That was the method previously used in HLFS, but migrated now to the method
> used in LFS: the patches are automatically recollected from the book's
> sources, pulled from the patches SVN repo, and copied to a directory under
> www.linuxf
El Jueves, 3 de Noviembre de 2005 19:46, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> However, creating a directory for BLFS SVN patches and adding symlinks
> to the patches in this directory, would mean that we would only have
> to update the patches location entity in the book.
That was the method previously us
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 11/03/05 12:32 CST:
> Hence, the difference between LFS and BLFS repos. Furthermore, to
> sync them would be difficult (well, not really difficult, but time
> consuming).
Thinking about this, I believe the main reason the BLFS repo was
created is because it was
Randy McMurchy wrote:
won't be identical. In fact, I think it would be hard to get them
identical.
Alrighty. :) I don't plan on deleting the patches for a long time, so
should stay fine now.
time) going to be different because when BLFS 6.1 was released, Bruce
inadvertently deleted the
Justin Knierim wrote these words on 11/03/05 12:39 CST:
> While changing download locations for the LiveCD, I had a problem with
> sha1sums (but md5sums are also effected) of the patches not matching.
> Is this difference, for example, between the patch from
> /patches/downloads/libpng and /bl
Hello BLFS Devs,
While changing download locations for the LiveCD, I had a problem with
sha1sums (but md5sums are also effected) of the patches not matching.
Is this difference, for example, between the patch from
/patches/downloads/libpng and /blfs/downloads/svn caused by svn or
something e
More info about
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2005-November/011999.html
This is confirmed to happen both on BLFS-6.1 and BLFS-svn-20051103
(with openssh-4.2p1)
--
Zaar
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Here is the massive patch I'll need
> added after verifying that it doesn't break anything...yeah yeah and all
> that too. ;-)
>
> --- mozilla-orig/xpcom/reflect/xptinfo/public/xptinfo.h 2005-10-19
> 20:52:38.0 -0500
> +++ mozilla/xpcom/reflect/xptinfo/public/xptinfo.h
DJ Lucas wrote:
> If you or Bruce still feel strongly against it, I'll defer the addition
> of a note until I can think of a way to, and then verify without a
> doubt, that firefox will not use it. This will leave building against
> firefox out of the question for at least a little while. Actual
On 11/2/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/02/05 23:18 CST:
>
> > Oh I mis-understoodnothing in that case AFAIK, but the firefox
> > instructions in the book contain '--disable-ldap'.
>
> Yes. As is recommended by the Moz developers. You'll probably
On 11/2/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/02/05 23:01 CST:
>
> > Has nothing to do with OpenLDAP, only the moz ldap lib provided by the sdk.
>
> But this is pulled in automatically unless --disable-ldap is
> explicitly given. --enable-ldap does nothing
19 matches
Mail list logo
