On Jul 17, 2007, at 11:22 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> William Harrington wrote:
>> I think it'd be a good idea to post this to all the mailing lists
>> than just this one.
>
> Well, I did lfs-dev, lfs-chat, and livecd. You think there's bound
> to be
> more users not covered on the other lists
William Harrington wrote:
> I think it'd be a good idea to post this to all the mailing lists
> than just this one.
Well, I did lfs-dev, lfs-chat, and livecd. You think there's bound to be
more users not covered on the other lists?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-d
On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm aware that this is perhaps a little off-topic for the -dev
> list, but
> I feel that this thread could really help future development of the
> CD,
> so please bear with me and help me out with as much feedback as you
> ca
Hello,
I'm aware that this is perhaps a little off-topic for the -dev list, but
I feel that this thread could really help future development of the CD,
so please bear with me and help me out with as much feedback as you can
muster. :)
The LiveCD project rarely hears much back from its end users,
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files.
> Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he
> does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is
> slightly different and possibly not backwards compatible since the
> cur
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:16:20PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I would like to allow glibc-2.5.1 through a freeze if it happens. That
> should be safe since we've been moving the snapshot along.
Duly noted. And I don't see why that wouldn't be fine. Especially as
once we clear up the remaining t
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wanted to get the ball rolling on this in an effort to resolve this
> ticket:
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2043
>
> The question comes down to, 'Do we want to provide support for building
> LFS from a UML system?'
>
> I'
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:20PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2
> > and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3.
>
> Well, it seems a good time for a package freeze the
On 7/17/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What do your bootscript patches do, and how do you view their risk
> ?
Should be backwards compatible. A couple I have queued up but keep
forgetting to commit them. Add an early script to quiet the kernel log
level, then kill the level handlin
Just wanted to get the ball rolling on this in an effort to resolve this
ticket:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2043
The question comes down to, 'Do we want to provide support for building
LFS from a UML system?'
I'm not sure that I'm qualified to speak much on this point, lacking
ex
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:20PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just as a comparison, there were a total of 126 tickets worked for 6.2
> and there are a total of 157 (5 open) for 6.3.
Well, it seems a good time for a package freeze then, especially after
Matt brought us up to speed with several pac
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> I was going to say 'yes' to a package freeze (and if glibc-2.5.1
> appears in a timely fashion you can knock me down with the proverbial
> feather!), except that (a) ISTR you weren't very confident about
> linux-2.6.21 (you quoted Dave
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 07:45:35AM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Note that the documentation on this CD should be ignored - it still mentions
> X window system and doesn't document the new boot options (e.g., "toram").
Blast! I had remembered that and then forgot it again. Well, I'm hopin
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Just wanted to announce the first of a new type of LiveCD. It's called
> 'minimal' but it still has quite a few BLFS-type packages. Mostly it's
> just the removal of X and any programs that depend on X and the source
> packages. The size is about 210MB. Should
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> For some reason, my responses to the existing thread regarding a 6.3
> release haven't made it through to the list. Hopefully this one
> does!
>
> I agree with the fact that LFS-6.3 is long overdue. In order to see
> this gets done sooner rather than later,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:48:15PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> A minor Glibc version upgrade can typically be done a lot easier. Often
> there aren't any problems as far as I can remember.
>
No doubt if I keep casting aspersions on the likely appearance of
2.5.1 I'll aggravate one of the d
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:36:40PM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
> But first are summer holidays. I imagine lots of us will be gone (myself
> included starting end of next week) so this probably isn't the right
> time to start an in-depth discussion with people not paying attention
> anymore or
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:56:57PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> I'm pretty much in that boat :) I'll be out of town the July 25-30,
> but I'll be more than happy to give time when I can. I think we can
> pretty much push a package freeze right now and cut a branch. The only
> thing I'd be inter
> From memory it's a major PITA to upgrade gcc or glibc on a running
> system--I don't think I was ever successful. I never tried binutils but,
> again from memory, the general rule was that anything in the toolchain
> was going to present its own special set of piles of problems.
Like Steve s
I agree with those statements, Craig.
Every now and then the old past still rears its ugly head. A few things
happened that hurt a number of people (professional and personal pride)
and those things are typically hard to get over.
I, too, have always thought it to be a good idea to merge CLFS wit
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:57:46 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Has anyone tried rebuilding and installing these packages in place on
> the current system? If so, what experiences have you had?
>From memory it's a major PITA to upgrade gcc or glibc on a running
system--I don't think I was ever success
On 7/17/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission?
>
> I'm willing to be a wing-man. :) I'll do what I can to help, but I doubt
> I have enough free time to
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:31PM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> So, does anyone here want to wrestle this release into submission?
I'm willing to be a wing-man. :) I'll do what I can to help, but I doubt
I have enough free time to tackle it all alone. A release comittee/group
might be a good id
Hi guys,
For some reason, my responses to the existing thread regarding a 6.3 release
haven't made it through to the list. Hopefully this one does!
I agree with the fact that LFS-6.3 is long overdue. In order to see this gets
done sooner rather than later, I think it only fair I pass on the r
I've been thinking about how to upgrade a system without going through a
full LFS build. AFAICT, almost every package on a system can be
upgraded without a reboot. BLFS packages are very straight forward as
well as gcc, and most of the other LFS packages.
Of course a kernel upgrade would need a
Hey All,
Just wanted to announce the first of a new type of LiveCD. It's called
'minimal' but it still has quite a few BLFS-type packages. Mostly it's
just the removal of X and any programs that depend on X and the source
packages. The size is about 210MB. Should be useful for a usb thumb
drive or
El Martes, 17 de Julio de 2007 15:13, William Harrington escribió:
> Hello,
>
>
> Anyone have the MAKEDEV-1.8.bz2 laying around in their archives?
> I'd like to archive it. 1.7, too if it is around anywhere.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~manuel/MAKEDEV-1.7.bz2
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
U
Hello,
Anyone have the MAKEDEV-1.8.bz2 laying around in their archives?
I'd like to archive it. 1.7, too if it is around anywhere.
Sincerely,
William Harrington
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above info
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Well, my impression of EVMS is that it's just a different toolkit on top
> of the LVM2 kernel driver (or at least, that's all it is *now*; it used
> to be a different driver too). I'd be inclined to punt it, at least for
> now.
This is a different userspace on top of the de
29 matches
Mail list logo
