Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> As recently discussed on the lfs-dev list and in the related bug
> (http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1676), LFS would like
> to acquire the package management info that BLFS has. I've attached a
> patch (`svn diff` format) that removes the in
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we link to some or all of these, I worry that we will have to
continually monitor the status of the hints, i.e. to see if they still
apply to the current version of LFS and that they haven't fallen into
the "Unmai
On 1/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If we link to some or all of these, I worry that we will have to
> continually monitor the status of the hints, i.e. to see if they still
> apply to the current version of LFS and that they haven't fallen into
> the "Unmaintained" bucket.
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As recently discussed on the lfs-dev list and in the related bug
(http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1676), LFS would like
to acquire the package management info that BLFS has.
One addition. It would
On 1/24/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what to about these. I mentioned this in an earlier
> email, but didn't get anything constructive on what should be
> done with these programs (I thought for sure you would comment).
>
> Do realize that there is a mention in the i
On 1/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As recently discussed on the lfs-dev list and in the related bug
> (http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1676), LFS would like
> to acquire the package management info that BLFS has. I've attached a
> patch (`svn diff` format)
Hi folks.
As recently discussed on the lfs-dev list and in the related bug
(http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1676), LFS would like
to acquire the package management info that BLFS has. I've attached a
patch (`svn diff` format) that removes the information from BLFS, on the
as
On 1/24/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> First of all, this is the wrong list. You *might* try blfs-support, but
> since itcl is not in the blfs book, you may not get any responses there
> either.
Oops, sorry for the noise. I always forget to look at what list things are on.
--
Da
Basant Saini wrote:
> Gentlemen,
> You have done a wonderful job in explaining how to complie/build/install
> tk/tcl/Xorg etc. from scratch. I compile and built successfully tcl/tk
> version 8.4.11 and Xorg and now I am trying to compile and built itcl I
> downloaded the source from sourceForge.net
El Martes, 24 de Enero de 2006 17:12, Nico R. escribió:
> Hi!
>
> Hmm ... no replies? Perhaps I should better post this to -dev where the
> BLFS XML gurus live?
I'm not a guru but live here ;-)
> > I'd like to create one XML file with the BLFS book in it, so I used the
> > following command:
> >
On 1/24/06, Basant Saini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> gcc -pipe -shared -o libitk3.2.so itk_cmds.o itk_option.o itk_archetype.o
> itk_util.o itkStubInit.o itkStubLib.o -L/usr/lib -ltkstub8.4 -L/usr/lib
> -ltclstub8.4 ../itcl/libitclstub3.2.a
> gcc: ../itcl/libitclstub3.2.a: No such file or dir
Gentlemen,
You have done a wonderful job in explaining how to complie/build/install
tk/tcl/Xorg etc. from scratch. I compile and built successfully tcl/tk
version 8.4.11 and Xorg and now I am trying to compile and built itcl I
downloaded the source from sourceForge.net but could not comiple
su
Nico R. wrote these words on 01/24/06 10:12 CST:
> Hmm ... no replies? Perhaps I should better post this to -dev where the
> BLFS XML gurus live?
I saw your message, but it is way over my head. Your best bet may be
to email privately to Manuel. He is the Guru.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version
Hi!
I'm having a problem with the BLFS XML sources and xmllint.
I wrote on blfs-support about 22.5 hours ago:
> I'm taking this to -support first, because I don't know whether this is
> my fault or whether xmllint is behaving wrongly.
Hmm ... no replies? Perhaps I should better post this to -de
On 1/24/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "client.mk is a custom Makefile provided by Mozilla providing many
> targets.
Some text wrapping kept me from seeing how stupid this line is. How about
"client.mk is a custom Makefile distributed with Mozilla products
providing many target
On 1/23/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> make -f client.mk ...: Mozilla products are packaged to allow the
> use of a configuration file which can be used to pass the
> configuration settings to the configure command.
This is a bit of a mouthful, but seems OK
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:38:14 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > This person has deviated from the prescribed method of doing things.
>
> Well, in many ways, that's the motto of LFS, right? Also, why is it
> prescribed? Not because it's neces
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:07:08 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am disappointed in my effort in describing the make -f client.mk
> text. I mailed into the list asking for help. *Today* It went
> unanswered.
Time zones, old chap! I only just got up *today*.
R.
--
http://linux
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:48:28 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:17:24 -0600
> > Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not opposed to adding a section on scripting packages. Chapter 2
> seems to be the appropriate place for th
19 matches
Mail list logo
