On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:18:53AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:57:08AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Actually, seahorse is why I'm replying now (was goingto wait a
> > bit). I've got a build order for totem (on top of my completed
> > desktop), but seahorse doesn't g
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:44:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > At the moment, I'm still trying to rip a classical CD in cdparanoia
> > on one of my machines (been running for about 66 hours so far,
> > reporting a lot of non-recoverable errors, but its been _nearly_
> > d
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 12:57:08AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Actually, seahorse is why I'm replying now (was goingto wait a
> bit). I've got a build order for totem (on top of my completed
> desktop), but seahorse doesn't get pulled in. So I took a look at
> the book. I _think_ seahorse can
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:44:08PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
> >>> some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
> >
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
>>> some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
>>
>> We can do that, but I'd want to minimize the freeze time due to the
>>
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:34:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > Can I suggest that we consider a freeze for the 7.4 BLFS book (at
> > some point) even with tickets outstanding ?
>
> We can do that, but I'd want to minimize the freeze time due to the
> upstream churn rate.
ratulate all of the editors who have been busting there humps!
> Excellent work guys! I've been hesitant to say it until now, and it may
> still be a bit early to tell what September will bring, but with the
> renewed interest of old editors and the new talent that has come aboard,
d editors and the new talent that has come aboard,
we are at the point where a BLFS *release* is actually possible again.
I'm not suggesting following the point releases of LFS, but I think a
major version convergence would certainly be possible. With a new build
method in the works, gold for
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/20/11 01:09 CST:
> Thanks, I'll commit it.
Good work, Thomas. Thanks. Would you review my replies to your commit
message in the blfs-book list? There are a couple of things we need
to do.
Something else I forgot to mention. It appears you did not set the
prope
On 01/19/2011 07:36 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 01/18/2011 03:35 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
pages/packages for KDE4
If you do, please try to use package versions that are
Hi all,
On Tuesday 18 January 2011 21:59:34 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> ...
> > I'd like to contribute here, but again, it wouldn't make sense just right
> > before a release is planed. So, should I commit the cmake-page now?
>
> By all means. CMake is going to happen, like it or not. If you have a
>
On 01/18/2011 03:35 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
>> When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
>> pages/packages for KDE4
> If you do, please try to use package versions that are known compatible
> with everything
On 01/18/2011 01:53 PM, Thomas Trepl wrote:
> When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
> pages/packages for KDE4 but it would not make really sense when the release is
> right in front of the door.
> CMake is quite a strange thing and indeed, many doesn't like it (m
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:23:53PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/18/11 15:19 CST:
> >
> >> The target date for LFS is currently March 1 (about 6 weeks from now).
> >> We could move it if you want to do a coordinated release.
> >
> > It
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/18/11 15:19 CST:
>
>> The target date for LFS is currently March 1 (about 6 weeks from now).
>> We could move it if you want to do a coordinated release.
>
> It would be nice to get BLFS-6.7 out before March 1, and we would be
> current
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/18/11 15:19 CST:
> The target date for LFS is currently March 1 (about 6 weeks from now).
> We could move it if you want to do a coordinated release.
It would be nice to get BLFS-6.7 out before March 1, and we would be
current for at least a few days. I don't
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
> When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
> pages/packages for KDE4
If you do, please try to use package versions that are known compatible
with everything else in BLFS. My only hitch is I used Python-2.7 (I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
>> When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
>> pages/packages for KDE4 but it would not make really sense when the release
>> is
>> right in front of the door.
>> ... So lets start...
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 01/18/11 13:53 CST:
> When is the next release scheduled? I'd propose to simply start commiting
> pages/packages for KDE4 but it would not make really sense when the release
> is
> right in front of the door.
> ... So lets start... There is a lot of knowledge
Hi all,
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:57:25 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> ...
>
> Sections 26-28: KDE
> Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a more than two
> year old desktop that I don't even know if anyone has been following for
> security patches. Nobody likes CMake and KDE4.x (we
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:45, DJ Lucas wrote:
> "Robert Xu" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13, DJ Lucas
>>wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
> I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm s
"Robert Xu" wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13, DJ Lucas
>wrote:
>> On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure
>I'll
wind up rebuilding anyway at some point.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
>>> I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure I'll
>>> wind up rebuilding anyway at some point. Next question is whether I
>
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I'm sure "right behind it" is relative to LFS release of 6.8 (KDE4 will
> still be a monster no matter when that date is).
LFS 6.8 is Scheduled for March. We're trying to make releases in March
and September each year.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
On 11/21/2010 06:53 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
>> I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure I'll
>> wind up rebuilding anyway at some point. Next question is whether I
>> should revisit the update to Xorg-7.6. I think I'm
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/21/10 17:52 CST:
> I'm using 20101117 version. Might be pushing it a bit, but I'm sure I'll
> wind up rebuilding anyway at some point. Next question is whether I
> should revisit the update to Xorg-7.6. I think I'm going to go ahead and
> push forward with it. A lot
On 11/21/2010 01:55 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/19/10 18:00 CST:
>> Sorry to resurrect a 15 day old thread, but are we set in stone on 6.7
>> then? It is unfortunate, but I've just started on current SVN thinking
>> we were shooting for a 6.8 simultaneous release.
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/19/10 18:00 CST:
> Sorry to resurrect a 15 day old thread, but are we set in stone on 6.7
> then? It is unfortunate, but I've just started on current SVN thinking
> we were shooting for a 6.8 simultaneous release.
I don't think there is enough difference to worry
On 11/05/2010 12:18 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:23:02AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>> And what version should we target? I see there being two choices. Target
>> for 6.7 and release as soon as we can. Or, target for 6.8 and coincide
>> our release with the next LFS relea
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:23:02AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> And what version should we target? I see there being two choices. Target
> for 6.7 and release as soon as we can. Or, target for 6.8 and coincide
> our release with the next LFS release.
>
I'd prefer to target 6.7 and "as soon a
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/04/10 18:23 CST:
> I'm sure there are some other minor things laying around, but they will
> get picked up as we start to blast through it. I can't believe we are
> actually discussing a release! That's just cool!
And what version should we target? I see there bein
>> Should we consider LibreOffice?
>
> Last time it came up (as Go-oo who has now rolled into the Libre
> envelope -- something akin to the Mozilla Foundation), we had one
> objection to Novell's input and mono (which can easily be disabled) and
> nobody backing me for it at all. I went back to raw
On 05/11/10 10:23, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Wayne, have you looked at 2.32 yet? If not, I'm good with staying on
> 2.30.2. We need to make a decision on how to handle the optional prefix
> though. Should it go in the dumpster? I'll be happy to go over the
> existing instructions and fix any side issues fo
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 11/04/10 18:23 CST:
> Welcome back...officially!
Thanks, DJ. And thank you for keeping up with things in my absence.
Perhaps my break away from BLFS and a new outlook, perspective and
goals in my life have diluted the poison. :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28
lliam's bit on the gnome network stuff. I'm hoping that it is a
no brainer for the BLFS part of that (merging the dhcp service scripts)
and hopefully, we'll have a new Xorg soon so we can drop quite a few
packages and the remaining configuration issues.
>>
>> Sections 29
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 06:12:11PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to see xz here (/me ducks behind a blast-proof wall)
> > because packages are starting to move to this instead of bzip2, and
> > it will allow up to use the smaller versions - it can replace lzma.
Ken Moffat wrote:
> I'd also like to see xz here (/me ducks behind a blast-proof wall)
> because packages are starting to move to this instead of bzip2, and
> it will allow up to use the smaller versions - it can replace lzma.
Actually, I'm planning on adding it to LFS.
http://wiki.linuxfromscr
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 08:57:25AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would sure like to see a new version of BLFS released.
[...]
> Here's my take on the state of
> BLFS. I am encouraging everyone to contribute to this discussion because
> I have been out of the loop for so long.
>
>
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 18:04, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 12:00:05PM -0400, Robert Xu wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 09:57, Randy McMurchy
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sections 26-28: KDE
>> > Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a more than two
>> > year old desktop tha
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 12:00:05PM -0400, Robert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 09:57, Randy McMurchy
> wrote:
> >
> > Sections 26-28: KDE
> > Not even a clue what to do here. The book version is a more than two
> > year old desktop that I don't even know if anyone has been following for
> >
ctions 29-30: GNOME
> We are fairly current, but if 6 months goes by without a BLFS release,
> it would be considered an old desktop. We are at 2.30.2, 2.32 has
> already been released and in 6 months 3.0 will have been released.
Keep 3.0 seperate from 2.32 when you update them.
towards it), so what to do?
Sections 29-30: GNOME
We are fairly current, but if 6 months goes by without a BLFS release,
it would be considered an old desktop. We are at 2.30.2, 2.32 has
already been released and in 6 months 3.0 will have been released.
Sections 31-34:
These programs and applic
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
>>
>>> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
>>
>> I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something official
>> this evening.
>
> Didn't get around to it yesterday. I'll update Rs
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
>>
>>
>>> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
>>> I'm off to work and will look at t
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 05/09/08 01:07 CST:
>
>> It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin
>> in
>> case of a version update, right? That dir is /srv/ftp/BLFS/
>> If i understood this thread right, we need to keep that dire
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I do not want to get into a situation where if someone follows
> LFS stable, we need to tell them to pull SVN sources from XYZ
> day and render it yourself in order to find a combination of
> packages that is compatible with one-another.
The compatibility problem automatica
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/09/08 05:00 CST:
> I do not want to get into a situation where if someone follows
> LFS stable, we need to tell them to pull SVN sources from XYZ
> day and render it yourself in order to find a combination of
> packages that is compatible with one-another.
I
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 05/09/08 01:10 CST:
> And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
> errata
> page, without the team tracking security issues and bugs, it will be just a
> snapshot, not a proper distro release. Maybe versionless BLFS (i.e.
Thomas Trepl wrote these words on 05/09/08 01:07 CST:
> It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin
> in
> case of a version update, right? That dir is /srv/ftp/BLFS/
> If i understood this thread right, we need to keep that directories uptodate
> since ther
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>> The real problem with it is, if we keep holding for every version
>>> increment, we'll never get 6.3 out the door.
>> And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
>> errata
>> page, without
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> The real problem with it is, if we keep holding for every version
>> increment, we'll never get 6.3 out the door.
>
> And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
> errata
> page, without the team tracking security i
Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since I'm new to the editors group (or for any other reason) I may have
> missed
> something, so don't hit me too hard for the following question(s).
>
> It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin
> in
> case of a version upda
DJ Lucas wrote:
> The real problem with it is, if we keep holding for every version
> increment, we'll never get 6.3 out the door.
And do we really need to get 6.3 out of the door? Essentially, without an
errata
page, without the team tracking security issues and bugs, it will be just a
snapsh
Hi all,
since I'm new to the editors group (or for any other reason) I may have missed
something, so don't hit me too hard for the following question(s).
It seems so that we need to update some directories (files in it) on anduin in
case of a version update, right? That dir is /srv/ftp/BLFS/..
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
>
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
>>
>>
>>> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
>>>
>> I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something official
>> this evening.
>>
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
>
> s/not/now/
Heh, funny how one letter makes a huge difference sometimes, eh?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubs
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
s/not/now/
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
I sent a message to Justin asking if he wants to collaborate using an
automated system. Waiting to hear from him...
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/f
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Sure. I started rsync manually.
>
> rsync -lprt --delete rsync.osuosl.org::blfs /srv/ftp/BLFS
>
> It is taking some time. I'll let you know what the results were.
The list of missing pakages is not much shorter.
-- Bruce
Missing tripwire-2.4
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Thanks for offering to help out, Jeremy. :-)
>
No problem. I'd have to re-familiarize myself with the BLFS source and
anduin's configuration...
Bruce, do I have privileges on anduin to do this sort of work?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
>
>> Man, I'm losing it. I'm going to check the archives right now to actually
>> see what was said. I just thought *for sure* that is what I read.
>
> Well, turns out I'm sorta right, for whatever that is worth. :-)
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:15 CST:
> There's got to be a way to do this automagically. Either via a cron job
> or a post-commit hook. If you want, I can look into it for you.
Probably for 95% of the packages, it could be done. A simple comparison
of book versus repo, and us
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
> Man, I'm losing it. I'm going to check the archives right now to actually
> see what was said. I just thought *for sure* that is what I read.
Well, turns out I'm sorta right, for whatever that is worth. :-)
On April 1, Justin wrote in to
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:00 CST:
>
>> No. I disabled the rsync some time ago as the last time the master was
>> updated
>> was sometime in December. If Justin's server gets updated, I can easily
>> re-enable the rsync.
>
> Well, I'll be darned. I t
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
>
>> At this point, why not just make anduin your master ftp server?
>
> The whole problem was that, as a whole, the BLFS editing team
> failed to do what we were supposed to (make updates on Anduin
> after updating
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:05 CST:
> At this point, why not just make anduin your master ftp server?
The whole problem was that, as a whole, the BLFS editing team
failed to do what we were supposed to (make updates on Anduin
after updating packages). I was the ringleader of
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 17:00 CST:
> No. I disabled the rsync some time ago as the last time the master was
> updated
> was sometime in December. If Justin's server gets updated, I can easily
> re-enable the rsync.
Well, I'll be darned. I thought I read in the messages back
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> No. I disabled the rsync some time ago as the last time the master was
> updated
> was sometime in December. If Justin's server gets updated, I can easily
> re-enable the rsync.
At this point, why not just make anduin your master ftp server?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscr
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 16:39 CST:
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>>> Now I'm going to work on Justin to see if he is around so he'll
>>> fix the main BLFS repo to have a 6.3 repo populated with all the
>>> current SVN packages (as per the current SVN book), t
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:31:18PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Ah, now I see why you didn't like it. I guess it's like the patches
> repo. Most of the time I don't want the whole freaking repo on my
> disk, but every once in a while it's nice to actually have them there.
> After doing checkout
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/08/08 16:39 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> Now I'm going to work on Justin to see if he is around so he'll
>> fix the main BLFS repo to have a 6.3 repo populated with all the
>> current SVN packages (as per the current SVN book), then create
>> symlinks point
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Now I'm going to work on Justin to see if he is around so he'll
> fix the main BLFS repo to have a 6.3 repo populated with all the
> current SVN packages (as per the current SVN book), then create
> symlinks pointing to that named 6.3rc1, 6.3rc2, and 6.3rc3.
I did create a
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Randy McMurchy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Never looked at it like that. Again, very valid. Looks like I
> need to svn co those auxfiles. My sandbox is just 'BOOK' and I've
> never needed to update the auxfiles so never co them.
Ah, now I see why you didn't like
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/08/08 16:21 CST:
> Never looked at it like that. Again, very valid. Looks like I
> need to svn co those auxfiles. My sandbox is just 'BOOK' and
Actually, I've got the Bootscripts and the edguide as well.
Fetching auxfiles now. :-)
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bog
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/08/08 13:52 CST:
> For mozconfig files, it's not that big of an issue. However, suppose
> we release BLFS-6.3 with firefox-2.0.0.14. After branching off 6.3, we
> change the svn firefox to use a different --enable-* option, say for
> cairo. If the files on and
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:11:58AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> I explained in great detail why this change was made and why there are
> two copies of everything (maintaining URLs):
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2008-April/018562.html
>
> How it's updated is very simple.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Randy McMurchy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/08/08 13:11 CST:
>
>> I'm sorry this has inconvenienced you so much, but it addresses a real
>> problem.
>
> It doesn't inconvenience me as I know how to create a .mozconfig
> file on
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 05/08/08 13:11 CST:
> I'm sorry this has inconvenienced you so much, but it addresses a real
> problem.
It doesn't inconvenience me as I know how to create a .mozconfig
file on my own to build Firefox. :-)
Though I still don't know what the real problem was (a
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Randy McMurchy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote these words on 05/08/08 11:53 CST:
>> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:50:44PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>>> Actually, I just ran across another one...and it's fixed now...I think.
>>> auxfiles/firefox-2.0.0.14-moz
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 05/07/08 06:37 CST:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
>
>> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
>
> I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something official
> this evening.
Didn't get around to it yesterday. I'll update Rsync today
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 05/08/08 11:53 CST:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:50:44PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Actually, I just ran across another one...and it's fixed now...I think.
>> auxfiles/firefox-2.0.0.14-mozconfig. Anything special I need to do with
>> that or the wget and md5 files
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:50:44PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I just ran across another one...and it's fixed now...I think.
>> auxfiles/firefox-2.0.0.14-mozconfig. Anything special I need to do with
>> that or the
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:50:44PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Actually, I just ran across another one...and it's fixed now...I think.
> auxfiles/firefox-2.0.0.14-mozconfig. Anything special I need to do with
> that or the wget and md5 files?
>
Sorry, didn't get around to replying to this ear
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008 08:55:14 schrieb Benjamin John:
> 2523
fixed.
--
Thomas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2518Xorg-7.2 libXfont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm a little busy today, but I'll get this done in the next couple days.
> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
Sounds good to me.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromsc
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/07/08 01:20 CST:
> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
I'm off to work and will look at this, then publish something official
this evening.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6]
Bruce Dubbs schrieb:
> We are down to 4 tickets outstanding for 6.3:
>
> 2526 Inconsistency about Xorg prefix [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2527 Xorg - remove lbxproxy and proxymngr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2518 Xorg-7.2 libXfont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2504 rsync-3.0.2
Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008 08:20:28 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>
>> ...
>> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
>> ...
>>
>
> ++
>
>
Yes, please freeze and branch. I'm currently running through a complete
build to gnome and kde desktop with almost all deps met, currently
testi
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2008 08:20:28 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> ...
> Is it time to do a freeze/rc1?
> ...
++
--
Thomas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
We are down to 4 tickets outstanding for 6.3:
2526Inconsistency about Xorg prefix [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2527Xorg - remove lbxproxy and proxymngr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2518Xorg-7.2 libXfont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2504rsync-3.0.2 [EMAIL PROT
90 matches
Mail list logo
