[leaf-devel] /lib/modules

2011-08-31 Thread Erich Titl
Hi Andrew at 31.08.2011 23:50, Andrew wrote: > 01.09.2011 00:37, Erich Titl пишет: >> Hi KP >> >> on 31.08.2011 20:16, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: >>> Hi Erich; >>> >> ...>> I would like you to reconsider this decision. >>> I understand that modules.lrp is too big once a box is configured, but pls

Re: [leaf-devel] BuC 4.x

2011-08-31 Thread Andrew
01.09.2011 00:37, Erich Titl пишет: > Hi KP > > on 31.08.2011 20:16, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: >> Hi Erich; >> > ...>> >>> I would like you to reconsider this decision. >> I understand that modules.lrp is too big once a box is configured, but pls be >> carefully removing modules, as they may be needed

Re: [leaf-devel] Protect Your Brand

2011-08-31 Thread Mike Noyes
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 11:52 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: > Protect Your Brand: A Warning to FOSS Project Admins > http://sourceforge.net/blog/protect-your-brand-a-warning-to-foss-project-admins/ > > Google Alert String > https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=linux+embedded+appliance Very interesting.

Re: [leaf-devel] BuC 4.x

2011-08-31 Thread Erich Titl
Hi KP on 31.08.2011 20:16, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote: > Hi Erich; > ...>> >> I would like you to reconsider this decision. > > I understand that modules.lrp is too big once a box is configured, but pls be > carefully removing modules, as they may be needed by others running a > different > setup.

[leaf-devel] Protect Your Brand

2011-08-31 Thread Mike Noyes
Protect Your Brand: A Warning to FOSS Project Admins http://sourceforge.net/blog/protect-your-brand-a-warning-to-foss-project-admins/ Google Alert String https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=linux+embedded+appliance -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes https://profiles.google.com/

Re: [leaf-devel] BuC 4.x

2011-08-31 Thread KP Kirchdoerfer
Hi Erich; Am Mittwoch, 31. August 2011, 08:59:07 schrieb Erich Titl: > Hi Folks > > I am trying to reduce the footprint of the modules.lrp archive. I looked > at /lib/modules and found a completely unstructured module directory. > > Is there a reason why we do that? Up to version 3 it was fill