On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:47:37 -0800
Qrux qrux@gmail.com wrote:
* So, I propose turning -x off.
I agree, I run ntpd -g
However, I also think the ntpd bootscript will work fine for most
people and for those (like me) who think it should be done differently
it's trivial to edit the
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:16:12 +, Andrew Benton b3n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:47:37 -0800
Qrux qrux@gmail.com wrote:
* So, I propose turning -x off.
I agree, I run ntpd -g
However, I also think the ntpd bootscript will work fine for most
people and for those
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:46:07AM -0700, k...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
+
+paraThis package does not have a working testsuite./para
+
I was originally going to ask to have it minuted that this was
where I cracked and told the truth about a testsuite, after some
circumlocutions in
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:20:49 +
Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:46:07AM -0700, k...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
+
+paraThis package does not have a working testsuite./para
+
I was originally going to ask to have it minuted that this was
Hi,
I upgraded gtkmm to 3.2.0 according to BLFS, yesterday. Then, some packages
could not be built anymore, complaining about some missing libraries. Comparing
the libraries created with the ones mentioned in the book, I noticed important
differences. Then I decided to get the latest versions.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:54:20AM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded gtkmm to 3.2.0 according to BLFS, yesterday. Then, some packages
could not be built anymore, complaining about some missing libraries.
Comparing the libraries created with the ones mentioned in the book, I
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:16:12 +, Andrew Benton b3n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:47:37 -0800
Qrux qrux@gmail.com wrote:
* So, I propose turning -x off.
I agree, I run ntpd -g
However, I also think the ntpd
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:20:49 +
Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:46:07AM -0700, k...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
+
+paraThis package does not have a working testsuite./para
+
I was originally
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 14:13 -0800, Qrux wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:16:12 +, Andrew Benton b3n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:47:37 -0800
Qrux qrux@gmail.com wrote:
* So, I propose turning -x off.
I
But instead, I'm going to suggest that we just stop mentioning
testsuites in BLFS.
Or at least make it optional?
In principle, I think testsuites are awesome; I like the confidence
they give that the system works as advertised.
I mean, if you're compiling from source, you need some
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:22:08PM -0800, Qrux wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:20:49 +
Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:46:07AM -0700, k...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote:
+
+paraThis package
Qrux wrote:
It also wasn't the question I was asking. I run ntpd in daemon mode,
because I want it to keep correcting my time after boot, and that's
where the slewing/stepping behavior is relevant.
Yes daemon mode is the script default.
* So, I propose turning -x off.
OK, I won't make a
12 matches
Mail list logo
