On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away...
Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
should provide bootloader and basesystem should require
--- tester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100
:
remove package basesystem and this limitation
will go away...
Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then
both grub and lilo
should provide bootloader and
--- tester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ummm, and economics rears its ugly head
You see, if you do a --whatprovides query, you
should get a unique
answer in mdk. Otherwise it is a nightmare when a
tarball changes--have
to repackage all of them that provide it, and the
distro gets
Did it pick up kernel-headers being in glibc? Now you
people have to waste your time repackaging glibc every
time you change the kernel.
Do you really know what you are talking about? Please, check archives
where it was explained (multiple times). Kernel-headers has noting to do
with
According to the documentation that comes with the
kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in
/usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones
your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc
SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package
forces us to waste disk space
According to the documentation that comes with the
kernel sources, the kernel sources installed in
/usr/include (or symlinked there) should be the ones
your glibc was compiled against. Having the glibc
SRPM compile against Mandrake's kernel-headers package
forces us to waste disk space
It's in their glibc SRPM. If you rebuild it, it
compiles against Mandrake's kernel-headers package,
rather than what is in /usr/include (which could be
Mandrake's kernel-headers package, and should be on
Mandrake's build machine). For the sysadmin this is
an annoyance because it doesn't let
It's in their glibc SRPM. If you rebuild it, it
compiles against Mandrake's kernel-headers package,
rather than what is in /usr/include (which could be
Mandrake's kernel-headers package, and should be on
Mandrake's build machine). For the sysadmin this is
an annoyance because it doesn't
--- Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
you should not compile glibc against kernel sources.
So I found the thread in the archives. I already knew
that the version of the kernel-headers doesn't
neccesarily match the version of the kernel. glibc is
supposed to be compiled against a
So sprach »Yura Gusev« am 2002-01-29 um 21:24:31 -0500 :
No i dont see any logic in this statement.
What I'm meaning to say: There might be some uses of any software, but
I'd say for the majority of the target audience (home users), any software
is not needed. So it should be removed.
(or
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another example of bloat: I use grub as my bootloader. This means I
don't use lilo. But when I try to rpm -e lilo, I get an error message
saying that lilo is required by basesystem. IIRC, there's some stuff in
the lilo package which is also
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away...
Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
should provide bootloader and basesystem should require bootloader and
not lilo and/or grub.
Alexander Skwar
Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Pixel« am 2002-01-30 um 10:56:20 +0100 :
remove package basesystem and this limitation will go away...
Is lilo needed at all if I use grub? If not, then both grub and lilo
should provide bootloader and basesystem should require bootloader and
not lilo
Hello Reinhard
Es schrieb Reinhard Katzmann:
AFAIK xfs in meanwhile no longer needed with XFree 4.2, so why not
simply remove it ?
We had this discussion some time ago, but OK once again: We are running
several Xterminals at our university which get their fonts by a Mandrake
Linux
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:33:17AM +0100, Stefan Siegel wrote:
Hello Reinhard
Es schrieb Reinhard Katzmann:
AFAIK xfs in meanwhile no longer needed with XFree 4.2, so why not
simply remove it ?
We had this discussion some time ago, but OK once again: We are running
several Xterminals
Ok, then make it optional at least (and don't use it any longer with
the
default installation).
It is easier for packages to modify just one file when adding font
paths. If you remove xfs support every package with own fonts has to be
modified. And you still have to modify xfs configuration
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out
there, but there are still lots of users ...
Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't
have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out
there, but there are still lots of users ...
for the majority of the target audience (home users), XFS is not
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone out
there, but there are still lots of users ...
Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Michael wrote:
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I don't
have any ext2 filesystems, and also no ide stuff. But still these
drivers are compiled into the
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 18.45, Reinhard Katzmann wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:00:44PM +0100, Michael wrote:
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 17.41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for instance I
don't have any ext2 filesystems, and also no
On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 16:41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone
out there, but there are still lots of users ...
Really lots of users? Well, you may need it, but for
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Peter Ruskin wrote:
On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 16:41, Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach »Stefan Siegel« am 2002-01-29 um 11:33:17 +0100 :
Linux XFS Font server. So it is needet! Maybe not for for everyone
out there, but there are still lots of users ...
Really lots
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 12:45, Reinhard Katzmann wrote:
I guess you guys mixed up xfs (x file system) and xfs (X font server) ;-)
i hate when people do this. ...eh.
It's not really the same thing, having ide and ext2 stuff compiled into the
kernel doesn't really hurt you, it's just
24 matches
Mail list logo
