FYI
I just sucessfully built my os, including cdrtools, with the actual
kernel headers instead of the linux-libc-headers package. The
relevant package versions I have on my system include the following:
Binutils 2.18
Linux 2.6.22
Glibc 2.6.1
Gcc 4.2.1
Also, I've built about 120 other packages, m
>From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I agree with what seems to be Walter's essential point: once we have a nice
>clean LFS system, we should be able to carry on from there, not still relying
>on whatever support system(s) we had to use building LFS. A bridge to BLFS
>isn't an unrea
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 01:20:31 pm Chuck Rhode wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the ancient history of BLFS, but it seems to me
> there might be room for three products:
I'm also not familiar with the history or the discussions surrounding the
current format(s), but what it seems you're aski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this on Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:04:03PM
+. My reply is below.
> One can hardly blame the new LFS'er for wanting to carry on in his
> nice new system.
I'm not familiar with the ancient history of BLFS, but it seems to me
there might be room for three products: BLFS-Par
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As a point of personal preference, I also don't much like "info". I'd prefer
> not seeing that solution. It seems to be being "left behind" anyhow.
> Man-pages seem to be the choice of everyone but FSF/GNU, with HTML coming on
> strong, and XML waiting in the wings.
On 10/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being a LFS user I can see Walter's point, and it's a good one IMO. I can't
> understand why it seems so obscure to some on the list. Yet, there may be an
> incredibly simple solution.
I have also been an LFS user for a while now.
Being a LFS user I can see Walter's point, and it's a good one IMO. I can't
understand why it seems so obscure to some on the list. Yet, there may be an
incredibly simple solution.
If I can summarize his point: once one makes a bright, shiney, new, but very
Spartan LFS system, the next thing
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Walter Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>From: Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>On 10/9/07, Walter Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Providing BLFS in info format does not require dumbing down *LFS or
> making any other major changes to its
Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2007 03:57 schrieb Walter Barnes:
>That looks good but the problem is that the prerequisites include things
> that are not a part of LFS (a working unprivledged user acount and an
> internet connection).
And that's great. That good, very good. And I really hope it never w
