Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST:
Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at all
in its current form, I'd like to drop it.
Thoughts, comments?
On the computer
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST:
Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at
all in its current form, I'd like
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/24/07 01:57 CST:
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
What would it report without the patch?
The pentium3 would become unknown. The patch sets uname -p.
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch that provides a better end product.
In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response, please:
s/Seems dumb to/I would prefer that we didn't/
--
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi,
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the
same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses
another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures
still.
Given that all 3 books
On 4/17/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 05:15, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Index: bootscripts/lfs/init.d/functions
===
---
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 19:06, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I just installed another system without the above tweak and noticed
how slow it makes shutdown. No one replied confirming/denying my above
statements, so here's a quick test to show that this is functionally
equivalent.
Sorry, Dan, I got
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch that provides a better end product.
In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:46:04AM +0300, Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
Maybe it's a flaw in Track, maybe there is already a patch.
Keep in mind that, although it may have appeared that way externally,
the idea to try out greylisting had nothing to do with recent vandalism
of the trac system(s). We
Hi,
The LFS and BLFS stylesheets rework has been done, or as least I can't find
any obvious remaining issues.
To allow review it, the generated chunked XHTML and PDF versions for both
books can be found here:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~manuel/
I will wait some days for your comments
Robert Connolly wrote:
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this:
Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686
pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux
What would it report without the patch?
The
Greg Schafer wrote:
Robert Connolly wrote:
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this:
Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686
pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux
What would it report without the
12 matches
Mail list logo
