Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/15/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1 - Fedora - Man-db is no longer being maintained is not needed.
2 - Debian - Simple to use that's why we do
3 - Gentoo - Don't need it, don't waste your time.
How does gentoo handle utf-8 man pages?
Wrong q
Jim Gifford wrote:
I've been heavily researching this utf-8 build stuff for Cross-LFS.
Being the skeptical person I'm, the first thing that caught my eye was
the inclusion of Man-db and Berkeley DB into the book. Thinking this
was overkill I made a few inquiries.
1 - Fedora - Man-db is no lo
On 1/15/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1 - Fedora - Man-db is no longer being maintained is not needed.
> 2 - Debian - Simple to use that's why we do
> 3 - Gentoo - Don't need it, don't waste your time.
How does gentoo handle utf-8 man pages?
> Found this page for man-db http://ww
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 1/11/06, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My gut feeling is that cleaning the toolchain might remove a lot of
differences (ar archives, and programs linked statically) which (at
least in lfs-svn) show up between the first and second builds,
pa
Richard A Downing wrote:
> I edited the perl file in commands and removed the make test! Then
> rerun. Cheating, I know.
And I hope by re-run you meant that you did something like this:
'cd /mnt/lfs/jhalfs
rm -rf ../sources/perl-5.8.7
make'
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listin
I've been heavily researching this utf-8 build stuff for Cross-LFS.
Being the skeptical person I'm, the first thing that caught my eye was
the inclusion of Man-db and Berkeley DB into the book. Thinking this was
overkill I made a few inquiries.
1 - Fedora - Man-db is no longer being maintained
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:10:45 +
David Mascall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:27:26 +
> >David Mascall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Richard A Downing wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of S
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:27:26 +
David Mascall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of SVN at
ext/DB_File/t/db-recno, Test 87.
Probably something to do with db?
Or is it me?
You are not al
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:40:26 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the package URL is not listed, but only the location
> > where it *should* be?
> >
>
> > So, why not just list the package URL?
>
> Short answer...it's a historical oversi
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Randy McMurchy wrote:
And I suppose what is most interesting to me, though I haven't (and
probably never will) researched it, is if this file truly belongs in
/usr/share.
Is the file not architecture dependent? Can this same file be used
by all machines, no matter the platf
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:27:26 +
David Mascall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> >Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of SVN at
> >ext/DB_File/t/db-recno, Test 87.
> >
> >Probably something to do with db?
> >
> >Or is it me?
> You are not alone - I'm getting the sam
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Why is it that the package URL is not listed, but only the location
where it *should* be?
So, why not just list the package URL?
Short answer...it's a historical oversight, I think.
Long answer...
We used to point to the packages homepage rather than to the download
Richard A Downing wrote:
Perl is now failing on my jhalfs build of SVN at
ext/DB_File/t/db-recno, Test 87.
Probably something to do with db?
Or is it me?
R.
Richard
You are not alone - I'm getting the same error.
Dave M
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http:
Dimitry Naldayev wrote these words on 01/15/06 14:55 CST:
> The chapter 3.2 "All Packages" contain not urls of the packages but only
> urls their locations. Are there main reason for this?
You are the second person in the last two days to ask this very
same question. I'll be the third.
Why is it
The chapter 3.2 "All Packages" contain not urls of the packages but only
urls their locations. Are there main reason for this?
Why not to put in the book direct urls to packages (as it done in HLFS
book for example)?
RATIONALE: It is not easy to keep the list of packages urls to download
(with wget
Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, you're not missing something - the news generation script could do
with mentioning which area of the repository the commit affected.
+ vote for this ;-)
but modification of the news generation script to do this can be no
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
As far as the book, should it be /usr/X11 and /usr for the optional? It
may be what Sun is doing, but this still isn't FHS compliant. I'm
leaning toward /usr or optionally /opt/X11 (follow KDE and Gnome).
The /usr/X11 is closer to the traditional locat
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
>
>> + Ported r7273 from trunk.
>> ^^ What is this news entry about?
>> Is this about a trunk? (but in the case it is unclear why we need porting
>> something from trunk to trunk) Or this is
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> Has anyone tried the precompiled Java I made, or the Java build
> instructions? I really would like to hear some kind of signal that they
> work for someone else than me only.
>
Give us time :-).
--
With best Regards,
Declan Mo
On 1/12/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so I'm a bit overzealous creating documentation. However, does
> this borderline obsession?
Depends on whether you actually read the documentation ;-)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
>
> minimal is mostly complete, I am having trouble finding which package
> installs the program 't' so the fonts can
> use. At the last minute I noticed a couple of
> libraries that may fix that. So it may work.
>
I'm here with the same code tr
Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
+ Ported r7273 from trunk.
^^ What is this news entry about?
Is this about a trunk? (but in the case it is unclear why we need porting
something from trunk to trunk) Or this is about a some branch (but in the
case it is unclear what b
This is a quote from http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/news.html :
Latest SVN Changes
* Manuel Canales Esparcia - 2006/01/13
+ Indented chapter 03.
+ Ported r7273 from trunk.
^^ What is this news entry about?
Is this about a trunk? (but in the c
Andrew Benton wrote:
But what about gcc's fixincludes? I have a feeling that upstream would
prefer that we didn't grep for, and delete, files that contain the
string "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE". Does it really matter what upstream think?
Not for that example, no. That's part of adjusting the too
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
As the sysadmin, you can change anything you want, whether it goes along
with upstream's wishes or not. But as a distro (for lack of a better
term; I know LFS isn't technically a distro, but whatever), the book
should not use a directory for changeable data when upstream wou
25 matches
Mail list logo
