Thomas Trepl wrote:
Hi,
just a dumb idea which came up when I thought about the possible content of a
core-book or such:
Could it be possible to generate a list of packages which are most used as
depedencies by other packages? That is as the other way round as looking at
a
package
Ken,
I'm trying not to take your response as a stay-away message. I understand
the concerns are varied and complex. I appreciate the well-wishing at the end,
and I felt I ought to acknowledge that first. :) Admittedly, I am confused by
some of the remarks. More inline
Q
On
On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:56 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 10/17/2011 11:42 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
But, your core already appears to contain things that I have no
interest in, nor need for. The strength of BLFS has always been
that you can pick the things you want. The idea of a 'core' implies
it
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:56:12AM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 10/17/2011 11:42 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
(Still thinking about the other parts of the responses)
BTW - please don't treat this as an attempt to deter you from editing
BLFS,
I've spent enough time on that unpleasant task,
Ken wrote:
But, your core already appears to contain things that I have no
interest in, nor need for. The strength of BLFS has always been
that you can pick the things you want. The idea of a 'core' implies
it should always be built.
Qrux wrote:
What's the big deal? Just take out what
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:34:33AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I think the impetus for this discussion is really How do we issue a
release version of BLFS with limited editor resources? I don't think
anyone proposed removing X or KDE or Gnome completely.
Splitting up into multiple books
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:21:19AM -0700, Qrux wrote:
On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:56 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
I personally have no problem with [BLFS-*], except that it'd be a lot of
duplication of effort.
I hate to seem callous for a Johnny-come-lately, but...So what? If there's
huge
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:04:50AM -0700, Qrux wrote:
On Oct 17, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 08:58:07PM -0700, Qrux wrote:
Perhaps. But, being everything to everyone is probably contributing to the
fall-off of maintenance. That may be the case, that
Ken Moffat wrote:
For a start, it probably means creating a branch (not svn's strong
point) and then copying things in as people express interest.
Really?
cd ~/LFS/branches
svn cp ~/LFS/branches/trunk my-branch
svn ci -m Commit my branch
The third step is only if you have commit privs and
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 04:36:30PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
For a start, it probably means creating a branch (not svn's strong
point) and then copying things in as people express interest.
Really?
cd ~/LFS/branches
svn cp ~/LFS/branches/trunk my-branch
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:56:05PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
Creating the branch is easy, as you said. Using it is less so,
IMHO.
By which I meant 'transferring commits between trunk and branch'.
You've *almost* persuaded me to get involved in BLFS again, Bruce.
But, apart from finding time
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
Iff there is interest in a 6.8 release, I might be persuaded to
sketch out a branch ...
Forgot to mention - it would ONLY be for things that build on
x86_64, if there is anything that only builds on i?86 I will
probably include the
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:32:17PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
Iff there is interest in a 6.8 release, I might be persuaded to
sketch out a branch ...
Forgot to mention - it would ONLY be for things that build on
x86_64, if there is anything that only builds on i?86 I will
On 10/18/2011 07:01 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
[putolin]
A few things. 1. I am, as of right now, full time for LFS/BLFS. It's
what I like to do. However, I don't want to be the only contributer.
Many, or at least several pairs of eyes are better than just mine.
What help are you looking for?
On Oct 18, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
scrat wrote:
What help are you looking for?
The first step is to get general agreement on how to organize the book.
A simple table of contents for what packages should be in a non-gui
Volume I would be a good start.
Then a list of
Original Message
Subject: Re: New Blfs
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:51:41 -0700
From: Qrux qrux@gmail.com
To: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
On Oct 17, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
This is a good, thoughtful, discussion. However I won't quote the whold
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:10:40PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
X, IMHO--or, vain opinion, whatever you like--is the root of all
dependency evil. And, this is particularly true for server deployments.
We really need to find a core that compiles without all the bloat
and cruft that comes
Ken,
On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
Let the desktop users decide how they want to recompile everything if
they want X support. Emacs builds fine (or at least, used to, back in
my day) without X. It also builds with X. Similarly, to the extent
that some packages depend
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 08:58:07PM -0700, Qrux wrote:
At the end of the day, if you're absolutely forced to link your stuff with X,
and have to build it--or, you don't mind deploying X to your server, then
that's your call. I don't care. I'm not suggesting there's no use case.
I've had
On 10/17/2011 11:42 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
But, your core already appears to contain things that I have no
interest in, nor need for. The strength of BLFS has always been
that you can pick the things you want. The idea of a 'core' implies
it should always be built.
And this is the crux of
20 matches
Mail list logo
