On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Well, initramfs, not initrd. They are different:
1) I believe an initramfs is mounted earlier than an initrd would be
2) an initramfs would do more than just load required modules
3) there is no FS on the initramfs image (it's just a cpio-form
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 19:39 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> Have they ever figured out how when your build a kernel to add the
> modules that your building into the initramf? So you can have a complete
> modular system?
I currently use a separate initramfs image and I build that right after
building
Chris Staub wrote:
"The TZ=UTC parameter sets the time zone to Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC), also known as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), but only for the
duration of the test suite run."
I certainly know that this means "the timezone is set to UTC just for
the testsuite" but due to the way i
"The TZ=UTC parameter sets the time zone to Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC), also known as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), but only for the
duration of the test suite run."
I certainly know that this means "the timezone is set to UTC just for
the testsuite" but due to the way it's phrased I was ju
Have they ever figured out how when your build a kernel to add the
modules that your building into the initramf? So you can have a complete
modular system?
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listi
The CLFS Project.
Cross Linux From Scratch is a book dedicated to building on various
architectures. Currently we have Alpha, Sparc, PowerPC, x86, and x86_64
architectures in the book.
Cross LFS will teach you how to build a cross architecture toolchain,
that can be utilized to create a LFS
On 10/31/05, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The process of creating the image is hard to figure out (or at least, it
> was hard for me to figure out), but that's what the book would be
> teaching.
>
> Maybe I should try to write a hint instead. ;-)
I've been wondering what an initramf
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
> with an initrd I'd need to maintain a whole set of binaries and
> libraries in a file systems that doesn't get used except for the
> first 5 seconds after boot. While there are certainly things you can
> do with an initrd I've never seen the benefits as outweighing the
Lennon Cook wrote:
> The idea of it is that the options to configure simply cause it to set
> some vars. To find the right values for everything, configure parses
> the command line options, then parses config.site, then applies it's
> defaults. config.site is just a shell script. So, we can set
>
On Oct 31, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
What I'm wondering is, for anyone that doesn't think an initramfs
is good, why do you think that?
For all the reasons you listed below -- with an initrd I'd need to
maintain a whole set of binaries and libraries in a file systems that
doe
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I don't see how PREFIX is set. When I look at configure, thee is the
> code:
[...]
> Secondly, can I use this file to do more than define prefix and the
> other directories? For instance, in KDE, I would like to automatically
> define --enable-final --disable-debug and
> --
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> In any case, are you asking that Cross-LFS investigate the idea of
>> using a
>> config.site for their build?
>
>
> Yes, for both Cross-LFS and regular LFS.
I was not aware of config.site and feel it may be appropriate for some
packages
I just upgraded my kernel to 2.6.14, and I remember discussions about
that version, udeveventrecorder, initramfs, and getting rid of coldplug
-- and the whole hotplug package -- happening several times now.
What I'm wondering is, for anyone that doesn't think an initramfs is
good, why do you think
Steve Prior wrote:
The Glibc 2.3.4 patch (which solves the ssh issue) doesn't seem to be
listed among
the bugs - has it been included anyway?
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/chapter03/patches.html
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/testing/chapter06/glibc.html
Looks lik
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 03:15:30PM -0700, Archaic wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:53:11AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> > On the second thought, I tend to agree that there is no need to use
> > config.site in regular LFS, IF a permission is granted to deviate and
> > use config.s
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:53:11AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> On the second thought, I tend to agree that there is no need to use
> config.site in regular LFS, IF a permission is granted to deviate and
> use config.site instead of the official LFS instructions for the purpose
> of
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt, we have a release date in mind?
Barring no further issues cropping up, I'd like to get a pre-release out
some time this week (the sooner the better).
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/buglist.cgi?&product=Linux+From+Scratch&target_milesto
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matt, we have a release date in mind?
Barring no further issues cropping up, I'd like to get a pre-release out
some time this week (the sooner the better).
http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/buglist.cgi?&product=Linux+From+Scratch&target_milestone=6.1.1
shows two remain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Because the current way has symlinks /usr/man -> /usr/share/man, etc.
>> It would be nice to get rid of these depending on how picky you are.
>
>
> Why don't we just have a regular /usr/man directory? Why get rid of
> the
19 matches
Mail list logo
