Chris Staub wrote:
Attached should be a patch to correct some of the dependency info for
the newly-split Xorg 7 pages. Also, I was wondering whether Mesa is
really "optional" for xorg-server. I've tried building the server
without Mesa (of course removing the configure option referring to
Mesa
Attached should be a patch to correct some of the dependency info for
the newly-split Xorg 7 pages. Also, I was wondering whether Mesa is
really "optional" for xorg-server. I've tried building the server
without Mesa (of course removing the configure option referring to
Mesa's source dir) but i
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/05/06 17:24 CST:
> I probably exaggerated
> above, but it's certainly rare that ed is need on an LFS/BLFS system.
Indeed. :-)
Have a good weekend. I'll be away from the computer for much of it.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [
On 5/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/05/06 17:11 CST:
> I could be
> wrong, though, since this is the first time in a long time I've needed
> it.
You don't find the TeTeX package useful to have installed?
That's probably the last time I n
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/05/06 17:11 CST:
> I could be
> wrong, though, since this is the first time in a long time I've needed
> it.
You don't find the TeTeX package useful to have installed?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C L
On 5/5/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about shortening it up some:
sed -i '/^soname_spec.*/{
i # X.Org hack to match monolithic Xaw SONAME
i xorglibxawname="libXaw"
s/libname/xorglibxawname/
:a;{N;ba}
}' libtool
Looks good.
My testing shows it gives exactly the same output a
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Well, it's not in there just for fun. ed, apparently, does things a
> bit differently when it receives the q command. It quits where it is
> and gives you the file back. sed, though, will q at the line your on
> and drop all remaining lines. This is a problem since only
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:42:33AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> BTW, the other KERNEL rules should be unnecessary now since they're
> handled in the default LFS rules since udev_update was merged.
They won't necessarily be in there when the book is released, though. At
least, not in the same f
On 5/5/06, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
El Viernes, 5 de Mayo de 2006 19:01, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> In the alsa utilities section, we have a long line in the instructions
> about creating a udev rule. Evidently, udev does not support the common
> practice of allowing a backslash/newl
Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:01:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/multimedia/alsa-utils.html
>
> Not about line-length, but... with the udev-retry script IIRC things can
> change WRT the restore script. I've never followed the ALSA/udev
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Viernes, 5 de Mayo de 2006 19:01, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>> In the alsa utilities section, we have a long line in the instructions
>> about creating a udev rule. Evidently, udev does not support the common
>> practice of allowing a backslash/newline combination for extendin
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:01:12PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/multimedia/alsa-utils.html
Not about line-length, but... with the udev-retry script IIRC things can
change WRT the restore script. I've never followed the ALSA/udev stuff,
so I'm not sur
El Viernes, 5 de Mayo de 2006 19:01, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> In the alsa utilities section, we have a long line in the instructions
> about creating a udev rule. Evidently, udev does not support the common
> practice of allowing a backslash/newline combination for extending a
> logical line to a n
In the alsa utilities section, we have a long line in the instructions
about creating a udev rule. Evidently, udev does not support the common
practice of allowing a backslash/newline combination for extending a
logical line to a new physical line.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/mu
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'm starting to update ntp and am unsure how to proceed. The current
>> version is now ntp-4.20a-20060224.tar.gz. Do we use this name or just
>> ntp-4.20a in the title? I lean toward ntp-4.20a, but I have another file
>> on my system that is ntp-stable
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'm starting to update ntp and am unsure how to proceed. The current
version is now ntp-4.20a-20060224.tar.gz. Do we use this name or just
ntp-4.20a in the title? I lean toward ntp-4.20a, but I have another file
on my system that is ntp-stable-4.2.0a-20050816.tar.gz (date ch
On 5/5/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Yes, we don't want the dependency. However, since we are doing a patch
anyway, why not just patch configure to remove the ed script and patch
libtool directly to the final result?
libtool is generated during configure, I t
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4/30/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaak! Wouldn't a sed to use sed be preferred? Why anyone is still
>> > relying on ed is beyond me.
>>
>> I'm really unfamiliar with ed, so I don't know if the ed sc
On 5/2/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/30/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaak! Wouldn't a sed to use sed be preferred? Why anyone is still
> relying on ed is beyond me.
I'm really unfamiliar with ed, so I don't know if the ed script would
work correctly as an sed sc
19 matches
Mail list logo
