Re: [lfs-dev] Linux, an OS?

2012-06-14 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > youlys...@riseup.net wrote: >> Hey all! >> >> I'm new to LFS, and I started skimming though the book, and I found this. >> >> >>> Linux Kernel >>> >>> This package is the Operating System. It is the Linux in the GNU/Linux >>> environment. >>> >>>

Re: [lfs-dev] Notes on a major upgrade

2012-06-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: > Generally, going from kernel x.y.z to x.y+1.* is easy, it's when you > go from y to y+4, or greater, that things can start to become more > problematic. I upgraded from 2.6.22.5 to 2.6.30.1 on my base system for this project without too much trouble. My next will be 3.4.1.

Re: [lfs-dev] Notes on a major upgrade

2012-06-14 Thread Ken Moffat
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:01:17PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > I think you will have hours of fun getting to a kernel .config that > > works for you. I *suppose* that 6.6 is probably good enough to > > compile a current kernel, but so much has changed over the years > > t

Re: [lfs-dev] Notes on a major upgrade

2012-06-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: > I think you will have hours of fun getting to a kernel .config that > works for you. I *suppose* that 6.6 is probably good enough to > compile a current kernel, but so much has changed over the years > that I think you will have a lot of fun sorting out the correct > drivers.

Re: [lfs-dev] Notes on a major upgrade

2012-06-14 Thread Ken Moffat
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:49:38PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > These are just some ramblings that someone might be interested in. > > OK, so my day-to-day LFS system is old. The version of glibc is 2.3.6 > (November 2005), and gcc is 4.0.2. There are programs that I can't add > due to the old

[lfs-dev] Notes on a major upgrade

2012-06-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
These are just some ramblings that someone might be interested in. OK, so my day-to-day LFS system is old. The version of glibc is 2.3.6 (November 2005), and gcc is 4.0.2. There are programs that I can't add due to the old gcc and X11 is 6.8.2 and can't display windows from another system bui

Re: [lfs-dev] Linux, an OS?

2012-06-14 Thread youlysses
> You have to understand what the definition of an operating system is. > Some people confuse the OS and the system. The OS is the kernel that > controls what programs are run, memory allocation, hardware input and > output, etc. This seems like a very confusing lexicon... Why would a system be a

Re: [lfs-dev] Linux, an OS?

2012-06-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
youlys...@riseup.net wrote: > Hey all! > > I'm new to LFS, and I started skimming though the book, and I found this. > > >> Linux Kernel >> >> This package is the Operating System. It is the Linux in the GNU/Linux >> environment. >> >> - > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/pro

[lfs-dev] Linux, an OS?

2012-06-14 Thread youlysses
Hey all! I'm new to LFS, and I started skimming though the book, and I found this. >Linux Kernel > >This package is the Operating System. It is the Linux in the GNU/Linux >environment. > >- http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/prologue/package-choices.html To my understanding, a

Re: [lfs-dev] udev : testing Bryan's systemd-make-systemd-optional.patch

2012-06-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:19:13AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Ken Moffat wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:26:42AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: I don't share your optimism that upstream will accept this, although I hope I'm wrong. For the moment, 182 is good enough

Re: [lfs-dev] udev : testing Bryan's systemd-make-systemd-optional.patch

2012-06-14 Thread Ken Moffat
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:19:13AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:26:42AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > >> I don't share your optimism that upstream will accept this, > >> although I hope I'm wrong. For the moment, 182 is good enough. > > I've been watc

Re: [lfs-dev] udev : testing Bryan's systemd-make-systemd-optional.patch

2012-06-14 Thread Andrew Benton
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:19:18 +0100 Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been watching the mailing lists and William Hubbs has been trying > to get a set of patches into systemd for several days. He is being > ignored by upstream AFAICT. They have seemed quite arrogant about it in > the past when they h

Re: [blfs-dev] xorg, libdrm, etc

2012-06-14 Thread Armin K.
On 06/14/2012 04:53 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 6/14/12, Ken Moffat wrote: >> >> Since there is no sign of a Mesa 8.1 or later release at the >> moment, perhaps I should commit that patch for the radeon driver ? > > Just FYI, here's a release plan that was discussed last month. > > http://list

Re: [lfs-dev] udev : testing Bryan's systemd-make-systemd-optional.patch

2012-06-14 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:26:42AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: >> I don't share your optimism that upstream will accept this, >> although I hope I'm wrong. For the moment, 182 is good enough. I've been watching the mailing lists and William Hubbs has been trying to get a set of

Re: [lfs-dev] udev : testing Bryan's systemd-make-systemd-optional.patch

2012-06-14 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:26:42AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > I don't share your optimism that upstream will accept this, > although I hope I'm wrong. For the moment, 182 is good enough. > > However, I will have a go at merging the write_{cd,net} rules stuff > from 182 into udev-config so that