Simon Geard wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:32 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> If the community's expectations are that we have the most current
>> release of every package in the most recent BLFS book, then the
>> expectations are too high and are unreasonable.
>
> It's not a reasonable expecta
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:32 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> If the community's expectations are that we have the most current
> release of every package in the most recent BLFS book, then the
> expectations are too high and are unreasonable.
It's not a reasonable expectation that the book will *alw
On 17 February 2010 18:11, Rod Waldren wrote:
> Another idea is to not worry about versions at all. Only build test and
> update packages as required to maintain parity with LFS and security
> errata. It may not be bleeding edge but it would certainly meet the
> educational goal and provide a us
On 2/17/2010 6:32 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> If the community's expectations are that we have the most current
> release of every package in the most recent BLFS book, then the
> expectations are too high and are unreasonable.
>
> Do you really think there will be that much difference between
>
Simon Geard wrote these words on 02/17/10 04:49 CST:
> On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 17:38 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Right now, GNOME is almost there. X has some changes that need to be
>> done. I'm currently doing many packages. I can actually see a release
>> happening.
>
> The Gnome release calen
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 17:38 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Right now, GNOME is almost there. X has some changes that need to be
> done. I'm currently doing many packages. I can actually see a release
> happening.
The Gnome release calendar has 2.30 due out in about 6 weeks. Will BLFS
have 2.28 be
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 01:32 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> The issue is trying to hit a moving target. I'm not going to try
> to do that. If the book is still changing, there is a reason. I may
> find out what that reason is, before the fix is in.
The book will *always* be changing, and the reason i
stosss wrote these words on 02/16/10 18:05 CST:
> You complain that you don't have enough help, but when help is offered
> you ignore it. so I have no petty on you.
This will be my last response on this matter, so please feel free to
comment but don't expect a reply.
Who has offered to help and w
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> stosss wrote these words on 02/16/10 14:18 CST:
>> This is why I would really like to see the book devs go to posting a
>> snapshot only when there has been a change to the book.
>
> You are making a mountain from a molehill. If you are so w
linux fan wrote these words on 02/16/10 16:11 CST:
> I claim that BLFS is a wonderful work of art with many thanks to the
> developers.
> I suggest that when LFS-6.5 was released, there should at least have been
> a BLFS-6.5-RC1,
That would have been impossible. BLFS was not ready. Probably more
On 02/16/2010 06:20 PM, stosss wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas
> wrote:
>
> I have never done anything on the lines of working with XML source
> files and creating a HTML file. Is there instructions that show how to
> take these XML files and doing my own snap
Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/16/10 15:21 CST:
> But, if both Book maintainers say that there is no need for a BLFS release
> anymore, then at
> least we have to find a workable scheme, so we can give to the developers and
> users a clear
> target and don't leave them in the
On 2/16/10, Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> But, if both Book maintainers say that there is no need for a BLFS release
> anymore, then at
> least we have to find a workable scheme, so we can give to the developers
> and users a clear
> target and don't leave them in the mist.
I claim that BLF
On Tue, Feb 16, at 04:46 Chris Staub wrote:
> If the book has an updated date and no Changelog entry for that day,
> just check the svn log to see what was committed.
I would like to say the same. It's easier to work with the svn (you can
see exactly what was the change) and the xml sources. If y
On 16 February 2010 19:37, linux fan wrote:
>
> That doesn't solve the moving target because there is only the latest copy.
So download whichever random version is there when you are ready
to start, then work from that local copy.
//
--
After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"
--
http://linuxf
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Chris Staub wrote:
> On 02/16/2010 03:18 PM, stosss wrote:
>>
>> I don't like the moving target either, but I have seen that it does
>> not change all that much. Some times there are no changes for several
>> days. Even if there are changes every day they might not
On 02/16/2010 03:18 PM, stosss wrote:
>
> I don't like the moving target either, but I have seen that it does
> not change all that much. Some times there are no changes for several
> days. Even if there are changes every day they might not be changes in
> the package version but changes in the tex
On Tue, Feb 16, at 09:34 Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:38:51 -0600, Randy McMurchy
> wrote:
> > Mike McCarty wrote these words on 02/16/10 01:32 CST:
> >> To put it another way, my time is my life.
> >
> > But you have the time to write 9 paragraphs about why you don't like
> >
> On 16 February 2010 17:26, linux fan wrote:
>>> The issue is trying to hit a moving target.
>> That is exactly the big problem!
>> You will *always* be working on BLFS for more than 1 day.
On 2/16/10, Ken Moffat wrote:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/svn/
> OK, I admit it look
On 16 February 2010 17:26, linux fan wrote:
> On 2/16/10, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> The issue is trying to hit a moving target.
>
> That is exactly the big problem!
> You will *always* be working on BLFS for more than 1 day.
> While you are in the midst of working on BLFS, it changes many times.
>
On 2/16/10, Mike McCarty wrote:
> The issue is trying to hit a moving target.
That is exactly the big problem!
You will *always* be working on BLFS for more than 1 day.
While you are in the midst of working on BLFS, it changes many times.
You cannot find a snapshot to run home to that is guarant
Mike McCarty schrieb:
[...]
> I want to build it, install it, and it works. If I could find
> a standard distro which didn't contain not only the kitchen
> sink, but 100 kitchen sinks [...]
Maybe the "JeOS" approach is interesting for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_enough_operating_system
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:38:51 -0600, Randy McMurchy
wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote these words on 02/16/10 01:32 CST:
>> To put it another way, my time is my life.
>
> But you have the time to write 9 paragraphs about why you don't like
> distros and use BLFS! Pot-Kettle-Black. :-)
>
> BTW, you may
Mike McCarty wrote these words on 02/16/10 01:32 CST:
> To put it another way, my time is my life.
But you have the time to write 9 paragraphs about why you don't like
distros and use BLFS! Pot-Kettle-Black. :-)
BTW, you may never again see a released version of BLFS, I'd take the
wise advise you
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 13:59 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Since I'm on the verge of starting in to build BLFS, it would
>> be helpful to know when the next release may be available. I
>> realize that can be very difficult to estimate when you do something
>> not full time. What
On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 13:59 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Since I'm on the verge of starting in to build BLFS, it would
> be helpful to know when the next release may be available. I
> realize that can be very difficult to estimate when you do something
> not full time. What I'm asking for is order
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/15/10 16:16 CST:
> Summary: current blfs-dev is immensly more
> likely to work on a recent system than the 6.3
> release.
I will update the BLFS website in several places to indicate that
using the development version is preferred and a new release of BLFS
is in
On 15 February 2010 19:59, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Since I'm on the verge of starting in to build BLFS, it would
> be helpful to know when the next release may be available. I
> realize that can be very difficult to estimate when you do something
> not full time.
Most people who use blfs should us
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> We will try to get a BLFS-6.5rc1 out just as soon as we can. I have
> a little time to devote, so we'll just have to see. No promises. For
> the time being just use the -dev book.
Thanks for all the free effort. I appreciate it!
Since I'm on the verge of starting in to
ALIP BUDIANTO wrote these words on 02/14/10 05:58 CST:
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 2:15 AM, Dmitry Sokolov wrote:
>
> We should do that because we are ALMOST TWO VERSIONS OR THREE VERSIONS
> BEHIND LFS!!
Typically I would never respond to rude people who use all CAPS, and
don't contribute a t
I can't translate this text can you write with syntax!
Or write on Russian language.
- Original Message -
From: ALIP BUDIANTO
To: BLFS Support List
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: BLFS-6.4RC1 or any
On Feb 14, 2010, at 2:15 AM, Dmitry Sokolov
On Feb 14, 2010, at 2:15 AM, Dmitry Sokolov wrote:
When you planning give us RC or Stable version of the BLFS Book?
Can you say about it's?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information p
When you planning give us RC or Stable version of the BLFS Book?
Can you say about it's?--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
33 matches
Mail list logo
