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
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
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.
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.
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/
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