Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing on the installation pages
for Autoconf and Automake. Perhaps the Test Suite depends?
Yeah.
The appendix looks good.
I do think that the dependencies should be pulled out of the individual
packages. No need to duplicate it in
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:53:26PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
The enhanced rc/functions aren't completely current, but can be made so
if anyone speaks up that still wants it, else I'm pulling it.
I use the enhanced, but only for boot logging. If you pull it, will you
be making incompatible
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 07:58, Chris Staub escribió:
I agree there, although I think that is only in the deps. page because
Manuel, in creating the patch, was simply copying-and-pasting my
comments about dependencies I had made in the ticket. Those notes
certainly should go into the
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:57:12PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
Create some rules that work around broken sysfs attribute creation
timing in linux-2.6.15:
This is still in. Either it needs to be pulled, or the version needs to
refer to the entity. Alex?
It needs to be pulled,
El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 07:06, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
OK, here it is. I also updated the chapter07/hosts.xml file as
discussed earlier.
Applied, many thanks.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano:
Ce rapport fait référence à un message envoyé avec les champs d'en-tête
suivants :
Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:59:11 +0200
From: lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Le message ne peut pas être
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:57:12PM +0100, William Zhou wrote:
Create some rules that work around broken sysfs attribute creation
timing in linux-2.6.15:
This is still in. Either it needs to be pulled, or the version needs to
refer to the entity.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:28:16PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
Say to me if you need a new Appendix C template.
Manuel, so far everyone has been in agreement that they like the look of
it. The only thing mentioned was taking out stuff like notes about being
non-root user. As far as the software
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:08AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should the
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:08AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Agreed with everything else so far.
--
JH
That's the way Manuel's patch is now. What he is saying is to change it
and *remove* that info
M.Canales.es wrote:
Right.
Remember that the patch is only a POC. All can be modified if needed.
I just now realized what POC means. I feel stupid... :p
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information
Chris Staub wrote:
That's the way Manuel's patch is now. What he is saying is to change it
and *remove* that info entirely from each individual package page.
Gotcha. Sounds fine to me. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 17:05, Archaic escribió:
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should the individual packages list their deps when the
exact same info is in the Appendix?
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the
Chris Staub wrote:
I just now realized what POC means. I feel stupid... :p
Hehe, did you think he meant something like 'piece of crap'? ;D
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hehe, did you think he meant something like 'piece of crap'? ;D
--
JH
*cough*of course not*cough*
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Moved:
/sbin/ata_idto /lib/udev/ata_id
/sbin/cdrom_id to /lib/udev/cdrom_id
/sbin/edd_idto /lib/udev/edd_id
/sbin/usb_idto /lib/udev/usb_id
/sbin/vol_idto /lib/udev/vol_id
Added:
/lib/udev/scsi_id
/lib/libvolume_id.so.0
/lib/libvolume_id.so.0.61.0
/usr/include/libvolume_id.h
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:59:48AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
Moved:
/sbin/ata_idto /lib/udev/ata_id
/sbin/cdrom_id to /lib/udev/cdrom_id
/sbin/edd_idto /lib/udev/edd_id
/sbin/usb_idto /lib/udev/usb_id
/sbin/vol_idto /lib/udev/vol_id
Added:
/lib/udev/scsi_id
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 12:56:26PM -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
So when the book upgrades to -089, I think we should add extras/path_id
to the EXTRAS variable in the build and install commands, so we have
this script installed.
Indeed.
I also personally think we should install the sample
On 4/13/06, Archaic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chapter 6 gcc says to repeat previous sanity checks, but that doesn't
quite work. Dan has made a proposal here (which included other sanity
test changes):
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-March/056423.html
We need to discuss if
---BeginMessage---
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:59:30PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 16:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Recently it's been pointed out to me that the modprobe functionality
with aliases doesn't quite work properly for some USB modules.
Sorry, my bad. I got a
M.Canales.es wrote:
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the special tagging in Appendix C required to can point the
package filies XIncludes to the proper place inside Appendix C isn't needed.
We could take away of that {formalpara}s and emty {para}s.
Yeah, I also
22 matches
Mail list logo
