Thanks for all the replies Simon. I used gtkhtml-3.6 and evolution is
now working. I will take a look at HAL, but won't implement it yet
Regards,
Donal
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above i
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 08:36 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Gnome 2.10 isn't compatible
> > with the current releases of HAL and DBUS, since the API changes on
> > those occurred after 2.10 code freeze.
>
> It is compatible after you apply the patches.
Ok, so the BLFS route is going to be to go
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 12:49 +0100, Donal Farrell wrote:
> Simon, I know nothing of HAL or DBUS, where in the BLFS book does it
> mention these?
Right now, they're not in it - they're optional packages that Gnome can
make use of if they're present. From what Randy's saying, it looks like
they'll b
where can I get the patch? How do I reinstall gnome-vfs with this patch?
Thanks,
Donal
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 14:36, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote these words on 04/26/05 06:45 CST:
> > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 19:21 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> >
> >>Other than that, GNOME-VFS requi
Simon Geard wrote these words on 04/26/05 06:45 CST:
> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 19:21 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>Other than that, GNOME-VFS requires a patch to compile with HAL,
>
> Which version of HAL are you playing with?
Most recent.
> Gnome 2.10 isn't compatible
> with the current relea
Simon, I know nothing of HAL or DBUS, where in the BLFS book does it
mention these?
Thanks
Donal
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 19:21 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Other than that, GNOME-VFS requires a patch to compile with HAL,
Which version of HAL are you playing with? Gnome 2.10 isn't compatible
with the current releases of HAL and DBUS, since the API changes on
those occurred after 2.10 code free
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 04/25/05 18:02 CST:
> Oh come on, John, there can't be more than about 80 packages in gnome !
> (depends what you count as 'within' gnome, e.g. things like libxml2 and
> libxslt, and even xscreensaver). Yes, this is always the problem with
> gnome - I'm hoping the d
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:49:02 +0100
Declan Moriarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From what I have seen, it's a nightmare getting usb, video, even the
> mouse to load off one setting. If that could be done, I think a lot
> more people would do it. For instance, I have here ATI, Intel, and SiS
> vid
"keep good notes, and perfect your scripting :)"
Thanks. That is good advice. I've built X NINE times now!! If I did keep
any notes, I reckon I'd be rivalling Knoppix now :-) That's my biggest
problem, glancing through pages and copying over commands, though I'm
not working in chroot anymore. As a
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, John Gay wrote:
>
> Gnome probably could be built smaller, but tracing all the dependencies would
> give the average person a serious headache.
>
Oh come on, John, there can't be more than about 80 packages in gnome !
(depends what you count as 'within' gnome, e.g. things lik
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Donal Farrell wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. My /usr is about 917 GB at the moment. I think
> Knoppix uses cloop compression in the kernel, and it's something I might
> look at. Do you use a Window Manager on your version, or a stripped
> version of KDE, etc? I installed KDE a
On Monday 25 April 2005 21:15, Donal Farrell wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. My /usr is about 917 GB at the moment. I think
> Knoppix uses cloop compression in the kernel, and it's something I might
> look at. Do you use a Window Manager on your version, or a stripped
> version of KDE, etc? I instal
Thanks for the reply. My /usr is about 917 GB at the moment. I think
Knoppix uses cloop compression in the kernel, and it's something I might
look at. Do you use a Window Manager on your version, or a stripped
version of KDE, etc? I installed KDE and made a dog's dinner of it, do I
reckon, if I fin
had my packages chosen, and working properly, and the architecture the
> liveCD would run on was a pre-defined x86 build, would it be possible to
> use lfs to build that particular blfs-liveCD?
>
> regards,
>
> Donal
>
Sure, why not ? All of the LFS live CDs that various people h
he
liveCD would run on was a pre-defined x86 build, would it be possible to
use lfs to build that particular blfs-liveCD?
regards,
Donal
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On 4/25/05, Donal Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there. I've completed LFS and am currently completing a blfs-build.
> Does anyone have advice and/or instructions on how to build a liveCD
> version? I've looked at the hints section, and the excellent hint on how
> to build a n LFS-liveCD.
Hi there. I've completed LFS and am currently completing a blfs-build.
Does anyone have advice and/or instructions on how to build a liveCD
version? I've looked at the hints section, and the excellent hint on how
to build a n LFS-liveCD. Can this be extended to blfs, and if so, has
anyone done it b
18 matches
Mail list logo
