Jim Gifford wrote:
First off, you will need to patch the kernel. 2.6.15 is not all the way
there, but GregKH has the necessary patches available to make it work. I
used
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/gregkh-all-2.6.15.patch
404 Not Found
Actually, moved to
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Maybe I should not post these types of advances anymore, it just seems
> to get everyone in an uproar over nothing.
Plese *do* continue to post. Like others, I have been following the
discussion. As others have mentioned, your posts have been a little
sparse on technical/im
Thanx Alex. I added some notes in what you said so you can know the
thinking and why some things are different.
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Jim Gifford suggested:
diff -urN /var/empty/50-udev.rules udev-cross-lfs/50-udev.rules
--- /var/empty/50-udev.rules1970-01-01 05:00:00.0 +0
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) I can change that to: #define WEB_BROWSER "exec /usr/bin/web-browser"
> and ask readers to make a symlink according to their preference. Is this
> acceptable?
No, that's fine, I think. Maybe a note could be added in BLFS browser
pag
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The third change accounts for programs that Man-DB should be able to find at
runtime, but that haven't been installed yet:
cat >>include/manconfig.h.in <<"EOF"
#define WEB_BROWSER "exec /usr/bin/lynx"
#define COL
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The third change accounts for programs that Man-DB should be able to find
> > at runtime, but that haven't been installed yet:
> >
> > cat >>include/manconfig.h.in <<"EOF"
> > #define WEB_BROWSER "exec /usr/bin/lynx"
> > #define COL "
Dan Nicholson wrote:
/usr/bin/col is from util-linux. Like you say, though, let's see what
happens with man-db.
Quoting from the UTF-8 book:
The third change accounts for programs that Man-DB should be able to find at
runtime, but that haven't been installed yet:
cat >>include/manconfig.h
On 1/5/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did the same thing on svn-20051223 a couple weeks ago. The farce I
used was older, so it doesn't output the same info. (BTW, I like the
additions, Ken.) My results can be seen here:
http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/lfs-20051223-repo
Jim Gifford suggested:
(I snip everything that is exactly the same as in LFS)
diff -urN /var/empty/05-udev-early.rules udev-cross-lfs/05-udev-early.rules
--- /var/empty/05-udev-early.rules 1970-01-01 05:00:00.0 +0500
+++ udev-cross-lfs/05-udev-early.rules 2006-01-05 21:50:30.0
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Until they finally kick me off their server, I've got a little repo of
> stuff trying to track my work on this:
>
> http://students.washington.edu/dbnichol/lfs/
Thanks again, Dan. I've merged all recent changes from trunk into the
alphabetical branch, and I took some small
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:54:53PM -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
>
> Anyone who has been following the kernel and hotplug development lists
> know that hotplug is depreciated.
I don't and can't follow either of them. No editor can be expected to be
an expert on every topic or to follow every technol
I decided to run farce on the svn book, because it looked as if some of
the issues I was seeing in CLFS were also present in LFS. Here are my
results for LFS svn-20060103 ICA, built from svn-20050902, kernel
2.6.13.
(this is with the first toolchain linked againist /tools as recently
discover
On 1/5/06, Ryan Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 18:20 -0700, Archaic wrote:
> > People reading this list are expected to be
> > interested in development otherwise there is no reason to read it.
>
> For base development of the book I agree.
>
> For banging on bleeding edge
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Oh yeah? I'll give you something to sigh about...
>
> /me dips Archaic's hands in maple syrup and tacks pages of 'War and
> Peace' to them.
Hrm. Doesn't seem to have worked... :/
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfroms
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Jim Gifford wrote:
Anyone who has been following the kernel and hotplug development
lists know that hotplug is depreciated. Even on the lfs-dev,
numerous times it has been mentioned about removing hotplug. So
it's nothing new, I just have a working solution for
Archaic wrote:
Jim, please, chill. What is being asked for is some rationalization.
Some filtering of weeks/months/whatever worth of who knows how many
lists into a nice concise "why". Saying that is fixes things isn't
much of an explanation. Randy didn't question that it worked. In fact he
was
Archaic wrote:
When did I refuse to debug? Being unable to debug is quite likely, but
refusing? I'm moving as fast as I can with a 50 hour a week work
schedule and full time graduate work. Geez.
Sorry for bad wording then. But I asked you to send the output of "find
/sys/bus/usb" and "DEBUG=ye
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted in section 1.3.3 of LFS-SVN it still mentions the News Server
> is available. Perhaps this needs to be cleanup up.
>
Done.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the abov
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 18:20 -0700, Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:11:06PM +1100, Ryan Oliver wrote:
> >
> > +1, it should never have been removed.
>
> I just don't understand why development shouldn't happen on a
> development list? Why shouldn't technical threads be here? This is wh
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> If no one else gets to it, among other things, I'll be looking at this
> later tonight. And then I'll do what I can to get it in ASAP.
And done. Unless we hit some major blocker, it should stay in as well.
Any minor niggles or somewhat-more-than-minor problems should proba
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:11:06PM +1100, Ryan Oliver wrote:
>
> +1, it should never have been removed.
I just don't understand why development shouldn't happen on a
development list? Why shouldn't technical threads be here? This is what
lfs-dev has always been about. lfs-hackers, IMO, was ill-co
On 1/5/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> None here. Though I haven't had a chance to look at the patch. Too bad
> so few have commented on any of this. Lot's of emails from a small
> handful of people, but a wider community input sure would be nice.
I am currently building an LFS with Ale
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 19:43 -0500, Joel Miller (RIT Student) wrote:
> Having read this list for a long time, I too would like to see lfs-hackers
> reinstated where stuff can be thrown about and tested so that it can be
> refined before it is brought to this list where the tough questions of
> ge
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Archaic wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
If no one else gets to it, among other things, I'll be looking at this
later tonight. And then I'll do what I can to get it in ASAP. Any
objections?
None here. Though I haven't had a chance to
Helou,
I found mistake in BLFS book version 6.1 - Chapter 11. System Utilities -
UnZip-5.52
there is:
To test the results, issue: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD && make check
and should be:
To test the results, issue: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD make check
Please.. could you correct it ?
thnx
Akt
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I get tired of people saying I'm keeping everything secret of what I'm
> doing. I brought what I found to the masses now that it works properly,
> and now I'm getting harassed for it. Do I really deserve this treatment,
> I don't think so. I'm tired of this crap, especially
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
>>> just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
>>> just a couple of weeks with these new
* Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-05 16:48]:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> >It would definitely help the workload if some packages in BLFS were
> >removed. For starters, perhaps BLFS could employ a policy that any that
> >are just a simple CMMI install (or ones which are easy to
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:06:44PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Or, if the patch won't go in prior to wider testing, I can hammer out
> a build in the next few days.
Unless something major happens today, it will go in. JH has volunteered,
and if he can't, I will. I'm still reviewing the patch,
On 1/5/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The patch is available at:
> >
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-2.patch
>
> Once the patch gets into the book, I'll do an ICA run on it an
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch is available at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-2.patch
Once the patch gets into the book, I'll do an ICA run on it and see
how it stands up to the alphabetical changes.
--
Dan
--
Archaic wrote:
> That's all that is needed. We don't *need* to implement some fancy
> technology. You don't even have to submit it as a hint, as you have an
Many of us don't have *need* for X on our desktops either, but we add it
and a window manager, and scores of other packages, because it's ni
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:20:54PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> * Removed the "all UTF-8-only bugs are WONTFIX" note from
> chapter07/profile.xml (but it is still true), pointed to the BLFS page
> for locale related issues.
Thanks, Alexander.
> * Convert Groff Debian patch to LFS-st
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> If no one else gets to it, among other things, I'll be looking at this
> later tonight. And then I'll do what I can to get it in ASAP. Any
> objections?
None here. Though I haven't had a chance to look at the patch. Too bad
so f
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:55:52AM -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
>
> I get tired of people saying I'm keeping everything secret of what I'm
> doing. I brought what I found to the masses now that it works properly,
> and now I'm getting harassed for it.
Jim, please, chill. What is being asked for is
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The patch is available at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-2.patch
>
>
> The rendered book is at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/lfs-book/
>
> Please review.
If no one else gets to it, among other thin
Miguel Bazdresch wrote these words on 01/05/06 17:01 CST:
> I use SANE and have a USB scanner. AFAICT, you don't need any special
> kernel stuff to use it (that may be different for SCSI). The libusb
> library is required and, in my case, also is libieee1284.
Thanks, Miguel. The USB stuff was my
* Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-05 16:49]:
> "Kernel Configuration
>
> To access your scanner, you will probably need the related kernel
> drivers or additional support packages (libusb-0.1.10a). A SCSI scanner
> will need SCSI drivers, a parallel port scanner needs parallel port
> s
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:38:18PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> Really, nothing (save for one report by Archaic where he refused to help
> debugging). It's just deprecated upstream.
When did I refuse to debug? Being unable to debug is quite likely, but
refusing? I'm moving as fast as
Andrew Benton wrote:
This sounds good, but I don't like the idea of waiting for a new release
of linux-libc-headers. I'm not sure we'll see a new release before the
end of the year.
As in end of 2006? That's rather pessimistic! Especially considering I
let folks know back in November
(htt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chaps,
can we put a little prespective on this.
Its a dev-list, a development process has been put forward to the list
for fun/evaluation/testing/feedback, this is not in lfs or
cross-lfsyet, Matts done work on this also which I tested in the
ea
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I think I still prefer the wiki. And re-establishing a properly
moderated and full-featured wiki could benefit the entire LFS community
once again, not just BLFS. The only reason our old wiki was dropped was
because of lack of use and poor moderation. If we have more regu
Jim Gifford wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
just a couple of weeks with these new versions you mentio
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
This sounds good, but I don't like the idea of waiting for a new
release of linux-libc-headers. I'm not sure we'll see a new release
before the end of the year. Is there a plan B?
Plan B -> Proceed with everything else and either skip upgrading l
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Trac could provide a wiki and replace bugzilla with one swoop (and there
are other benefits).
BTW, I know Matt at one time wanted to know if Trac could import
databases from Bugzilla.
http://projects.edgewall.com/trac/wiki/TracImport
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.o
Andrew Benton wrote:
This sounds good, but I don't like the idea of waiting for a new release
of linux-libc-headers. I'm not sure we'll see a new release before the
end of the year. Is there a plan B?
Plan B -> Proceed with everything else and either skip upgrading llh, or
pull from llh's re
Matthew Burgess wrote:
the only reason my work has not hit the book is
we're still waiting on linux-libc-headers. Once that's in, the plan of
attack will be:
1) Upgrade kernel+llh
2) Upgrade udev, remove hotplug and patch the bootscripts to not install
the hotplug script and fix the udev scr
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>From that form, an editor would review submitted comments and approve
(with possible edits), reject with comments, or discard the input.
Approved comments would be inserted into the appropriate html page as a
part of the daily book generation, but not the pdf form of the boo
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Bruce's original email seemed to imply that additional work is a
> consideration.
It is a consideration, but the most important issue is qualification to
make the appropriate changes. The editors do not have the
qualifications to make appropriate changes in every area.
I had another thought about how to go about how to support clfs, i18n,
etc. Perhaps we could initiate a "User Contributed Notes" section that
could be submitted by a general user similar to the php documentation.
For example see:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.variables.php
As I envision
On 1/4/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > In the ncurses instructions, you use the INPUT method to force linking
> > against the widec versions. Wouldn't it be easier to just use symlinks
> > like we do for ncurses? Or is there a particular reason for
Hi all,
I'm updating the Sane package and am curious about some of the
text where I'm not confident it is correct. I'm not saying it is
wrong, or it is right, I'm just saying I don't know and it would
be nice if somebody with more knowledge could either confirm the
text is accurate, or say that it
On 1/4/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Ignore the issues.
> 2. Add i18n / CLFS issues to each package as they come up.
> 3. Have a section or appendix in the book to address the issues and
> link each package to the appropriate part. This is the approach
> that has been
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
just a couple of weeks with these new versions you mention?
I don't thi
Randy McMurchy wrote:
As far as you saying that I've commented on these issues, it is
funny you say that. Of all the links you provided to threads, the
only comments I've made is that you are too secretive and won't
share knowledge with the community.
Everything has been laid out on the hotplug
On 1/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
> just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
> just a couple of weeks with these new versions you mention?
I don't think Jim is proposing adding th
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/05/06 11:09 CST:
> I talked about this packages so many times on the lists, why don't you
> just pay attention,
Thanks for your condescending attitude, Jim. But it doesn't bother
me, perhaps I deserve it. Who knows?
What I do know, however, is that I have a f
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
(Based on previous posts to lfs-dev) I was under the impression that
the udev and hotplug is maintained by the same team and that the
hotplug package is being depracated and udev will be the new hotplug
handler.
That is correct. Basically hotplug is now one line in t
On 1/5/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Um, no, it's the hotplug folks that aren't updating (or, more
> accurately, hotplug devs no longer seem to exist). The udev devs are
> still actively maintaining and updating udev.
(Based on previous posts to lfs-dev) I was under the impression
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thanks to you and Alex for your continued patience with me on this,
and for your answers so far. Now, with all due respect to Jim's work,
why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
Matthew Burgess wrote:
And I already provided a way of getting this working without a need
for the package that the cross-lfs team has provided. This is in the
archives for last month, so I'm not going to repeat it here. What I
will say though is that the only reason my work has not hit the
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
First off, you will need to patch the kernel. 2.6.15 is not all the
way there, but GregKH has the necessary patches available to make it
work. I used
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/gregkh-all-2.6.15.patch
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the UTF-8 patch has been updated in order to use DB instead of GDBM
> (this was easier than I thought).
Alexander, you're a machine. Keep up the good work if you can!
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
Hello,
the UTF-8 patch has been updated in order to use DB instead of GDBM
(this was easier than I thought). The arpd binary has been reenabled in
iproute2. Description of the "locale" command has been corrected on the
Glibc page. There are no other changes.
The patch is available at:
http:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
I know this is a topic a lot of people are interested in. How to get
udev hotplugging working.
And I already provided a way of getting this working without a need for
the package that the cross-lfs team has provided.
s/working/working in LFS/. New
Alan Lord wrote:
> You are correct. I have just tried again and the LiveCD does boot if it
> is in hdb as long as there isn't a CD in hda... On this PC, /dev/hda is
> a DVD_RAM drive which I normally leave in permanently and use for backup
> purposes - this machine currently runs Windows.
Well th
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I used 4.4.16 in my most recent build. I did not update BLFS to this
version. There are some API changes, however, so far I've only had to
patch Python. I am quite confident though, that if we run into any
other issues there is either 1)patches already available or 2) we
co
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> [...] things like edd_id and dasd_id aren't
> necessary on an x86 as far as I can tell).
Actually, I am not aware of any platform *except* x86 that does have
EDD or anything remotely like it. No platform except x86 uses this 25
year old abonimation called BIOS, so no plat
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Alan Lord wrote:
Bringing down the loopback interface...[OK]
cpio: /lib/libreadline.so.5.0: No such file or directory
cpio: /lib/libhistory.so.5.0: No such file or directory
Kernel Panic - not syncing: Attempt to kill init!
Hope this helps someone
Alan Lord wrote:
Bringing down the loopback interface...[OK]
cpio: /lib/libreadline.so.5.0: No such file or directory
cpio: /lib/libhistory.so.5.0: No such file or directory
Kernel Panic - not syncing: Attempt to kill init!
Hope this helps someone
I thought I have fixed this! T
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
I remember the discussion (I think), but the bug was more of a 'if you
have 2 cdrom drives and some other CD is in the first one and LiveCD in
the second, it would fail to find the LiveCD." Not sure if that was
fixed yet.
You are correct. I have just tried again an
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Thanks to you and Alex for your continued patience with me on this,
and for your answers so far. Now, with all due respect to Jim's work,
why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
El Miércoles, 4 de Enero de 2006 22:51, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Just in case anyone was interested, it looks like we're getting close
> to glibc-2.4.
I have a testing system runing with it from two mounths about (I recentrly
compile with GCC 4.1) and it seems run very well.
I not found hard
73 matches
Mail list logo
