Re: Removing Source Trees--Paranoia Acting Up

2005-09-25 Thread Declan Moriarty
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words > On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 04:42:36PM -0500, Dan McGhee wrote: > > > > I thought I remembered some words in LFS or BLFS about removing > > sources, but, except for the clean-up in LFS, I can't find anything. > > Am I just paranoid or should I turn 'rm

Re: Removing Source Trees--Paranoia Acting Up

2005-09-24 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Dan McGhee wrote: Oh BTW, since kernel headers are installed separately now, is there any reason to keep the kernel source tree around? Once it works properly, no. With 2.6, rebuilds after altering the .config are a lot more sensible, so a minimal change can be built

Re: Removing Source Trees--Paranoia Acting Up

2005-09-24 Thread Archaic
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 04:42:36PM -0500, Dan McGhee wrote: > > I thought I remembered some words in LFS or BLFS about removing sources, > but, except for the clean-up in LFS, I can't find anything. Am I just > paranoid or should I turn 'rm -R ' loose. I figure I should save > "config.cache."

Removing Source Trees--Paranoia Acting Up

2005-09-24 Thread Dan McGhee
I'm trying to do some long overdue clean-up in getting ready to build Open Office--3 gig --> yikes. I have just about that left on my LFS partition. However, I can free up 2.1 G if I remove the firefox, thunderbird, gimp, qt and xorg sources. I thought I remembered some words in LFS or BLFS