Joe Ciccone wrote:
> I put this page together with the users and groups from LFS and BLFS.
> The only addition I made to this page is a users groups with a gid of
> 100. Anyone that wants to set something in stone, this would be a good
> place to start. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jciccone/use
Isn't it good since the subscribe-only policy came in.
I really like this.
I'm really sending this to see if gmane posting works, so please don't
moderate it through.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above
The Cross-LFS book says to go and register with the LFS counter. If
Cross-lfs is your first LFS, then you can't choose an appropriate
version! The Cross-lfs and HLFS versions need to be put in the list.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> ./configure --prefix=$(kde-config --prefix)
>
> Thoughts?
>
Neat. I like it.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Hopefully the name of the two different threads is not so similar that
> it looks to all as one thread. :-)
>
> I'm adding K3b to the book. Some preliminary testing has shown that
> it will work when installed in a prefix other than $KDE_PREFIX. Note
> that thi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing FBCS CITP wrote:
>> Well, that's that then.
>
> Indeed :-( Thanks to you and George for forwarding the news on.
>
> My own naive take on this is that Jim and co. should aim towards getting
> the santizing script into a stat
Well, that's that then.
Over to you Jim, mate.
R.
--
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP
http://www.langside.org.uk PGP fingerprint:
D682 49A5 7050 E781 229C A2F0 DE1F C040 DE78 53E8
--- Begin Message ---
LLH hasn't seen a new release for a lot more than six months now and up until
today
Greg Schafer wrote:
> But that doesn't escape the fact that this "every man for himself"
> approach is essentially wrong. Yes it's been talked about for years, but
> Linux *needs* a centralized linux headers project of some sort. Llh is a
> step in the right direction and IMHO there is still plent
I've written two wiki pages, Libgphoto2 and GPhoto2, as a start of set
of packages on the general theme of Digital Photography.
There doesn't seem to be a good place to link these into the index.
What is suggested?
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://w
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Nothing *depends* on vim, so
>>
>>> leave it at the end.
>>
>>
>> I depend on vim. Put it at the front.
>> Only just :-)
>
> Actually, if we were to repla
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Nothing *depends* on vim, so
> leave it at the end.
I depend on vim. Put it at the front.
Only just :-)
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> Maybe someone should pull the CVS and build it to see if this issue is
>> resolved.
>
> Depending on the outcome of this testing, we'll want to discuss now if
> we want to downgrade shadow back to 4.0.13, or wait for its next release
> if there is a known release date.
>
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
>> installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
>> makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm u
Richard A Downing wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> I'm at work at the moment so can't reply on list. Shadow's 'su' is
>> documented to support the '-c' parameter, at least in man/su/su.1.xml.
>> I'm pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I'm at work at the moment so can't reply on list. Shadow's 'su' is
> documented to support the '-c' parameter, at least in man/su/su.1.xml.
> I'm pretty certain I've used 'su -c' before now on my LFS box, and we've
> used shadow's 'su' for as long as I can r
I just built the cross-lfs book, and noticed that the version of su
installed comes from shadow. This version doesn't support -c, which IMO
makes it useless. The version built in coreutils is the one I'm used to.
Which version would SVN build? And after alphabering it? I never
build PAM, s
William Harrington wrote:
> Howdy folks,
>
>Well the dreaded day has arrived and I shall be deployed overseas. I
> will be active
> march 2nd and should last around 416 days. Maybe who knows...
>
> Later everyone! Don't fight while I'm gone. LFS don't kill people!
> People kill people!
>
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> I tried Jim Gifford's Cross-lfs udev patches, and they work fine, so
>> that's what I'm going with for now.
>
> I'm not familiar with these patches, and I can't seem to find them in
> t
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
> ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="?*" MODALIAS=="?*", RUN+="/sbin/modprobe
> ${modalias}"
Thanks Brian. I understood that. Unfortunately changing the rules
didn't fix my problem. Nothing loads the modules. So I guess I must
have a typo somewhere else.
I tried Jim Gifford's
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> However since mine is a a non-branch SVN converted
>> to Udev (no hotplug) I may have missed something.
>
> One immediate thought. Did you update the rules file to follow what's
> in the udev branch? i.e. remove
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/18/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alternatively, what purpose does populating /dev do at this stage? Does
>> something we build later on actually require devices in there that we
>> haven't yet got available to us?
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Glad to hear some
DJ Lucas wrote:
> The directories shm and pts are not created automagically in /dev
> anymore. I just realized, however, that I have no idea how they had come
> to exist before. Using 2.6.15.4 and udev-084. In the udev
> instructions, add 'mkdir /lib/udev/devices/{shm,pts}' to the first
> instruc
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
Nah, it's fat bastards that cause flame wars.
I once sent the Head of HR in my old firm a
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
stuff.
I don't normally like quoting scripture here but these are serious times:
Matthew 18:21
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alan Lord wrote:
> I know - posting to my own message but...
>
> Just d/l the OOo linux-intel-x86 package and it's all in bloody RPMS!!!
If you convert the RPMS to tar.gz with rpm2targz then the tar.gz's will
unpack to /opt/openoffice.org2.0.
http://downloads.linuxfromscratch.org/rpm2targz.t
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
>> I hadn't been following this branch, but decided that this is the next
>> important leap forward for Linux-kind - getting rid of hotpig, I mean,
>> so I am now in class and paying attention.
>
> OK then, y
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:31:03 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (or am I missing a sarcasm-detection plugin)
That, along with my attention deficit disorder (which is why I can't
stand long sentences).
:-)
I hadn't been following this branch, but decided that this is the next
imp
The excellent page 7.4 on "Device and Module Handling on an LFS System"
has a minor wording difficulty for me. In 7.4.4 the
sentence "A kernel driver may not export its data to sysfs." means that
a kernel driver is not allowed, by some unspecified rules, to export its
data to sysfs. What I think
Sorry, I tried to stop this getting out with the attachment. Not
quick enough!
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:36:34 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Ennis wrote these words on 01/24/06 00:23 CST:
>
> > This may well be the case, but many people will
> > view the site using this particular non-standard,
> > whether or not they are a target audience.
> > If it
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:29:27 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> > I have a login ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for BLFS which I know
> > the password (and checked it with Bogzilla), but trac doesn't let
> > me log in. O
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:36 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > immediately though, of course. I think another two weeks of
> > testing by *all* members of the community, be they developers or
> > our beloved users, is still necessary to ensure we can al
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:39:52 +1100
Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do we want use 2.4 headers with patches, like the distro's? (NO!,
> > may loose some 2.6 ABI functionality)
>
> Amazingly, this is what the distro with the most Linux professionals
> working for it does (ie: RH/Fedora
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:38:32 -0800
Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we all have come to realization that LLH headers are not
> coming out. So I've been checking into how to make these headers. So
> I'm asking everyone's opinion on this before I pursue this task.
Well done Jim, som
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:34:39 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> > The problem is that I no longer want UTF-8 in trunk.
>
> Well, I do. I consider it a bug that we can't cater for folk wanting
> to use UTF-8 locales without breaking groff, man, gr
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:49:56 -0800
Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reply to both lists
>
Jim,
Cross-lfs is not on gmane. Can you get it on there please, then I'll
monitor it. I don't do mailing lists anymore.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: ht
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:47:54 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> >So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling
> >that you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or
> >prefer them to be stored in an appendix, ple
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0800
Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, this broke jhalfs, because it assumes that the book
> > has to be followed in the linear way. Further patches will not be
> > provided u
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:50:23 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:42 +0500
> >"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It&#
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:42 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:50:04 -0500
> >"Waywardness D. Norma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>(sp
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:50:04 -0500
"Waywardness D. Norma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> П о к у п а е м б/у а в т о м о б и л и
> отечественного, японского , американского , европейского и др.
> производителей , джипы , минивены , легковые и автобусы, в любом
> техническо
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:27:06 + (GMT)
Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, David Mascall wrote:
>
> > I wonder why this only occurs under jhalfs ? I cant find any
> > reports of this error from people building current SVN non-jhalfs.
>
> More generally, the number
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:05:39 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 somethin
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:
> >
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 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 i
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.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:40:35 +
Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
> Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
> Perhaps I'm in a minority, b
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:11:07 +
Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:55:57 -0500
> Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would really like to get everyone's opinion.
> All things being equal I think thi
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/10/06 03:26 CST:
> > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
> > Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>The BDB dependencies hav
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joel Miller wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:08 CST:
>
> > Additionally, IIRC, BLFS is no longer going to list BDB as a
> > dependence (i.e. they assume it will be installed).
>
> The BDB dependencies have already bee
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:55:57 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would really like to get everyone's opinion.
I like the look of this too. You've done a good job getting the
look-feel like the website.
I really like the SVN browser and the Changelog.
My only criticism is that t
I was reading one of the mailings about stable and unstable versions...
You know, in almost five years of doing this LFS stuff, I have never
once actually NEEDED a later version of an LFS package. OK, when it
arrived, the improvements were sometimes good, but I was never
actually waiting for it.
Recent kernels don't seem to support this configuartion switch any more.
Does this mean the FAQ needs adjusting?
CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS=y
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:37:49 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/07/06 13:26 CST:
> > I noticed that this switch is in the LFS book for BerkyDB, I haven't
> > built that for some time (when something says it needs
I noticed that this switch is in the LFS book for BerkyDB, I haven't
built that for some time (when something says it needs a DB that I'm
testing).
Does Man-DB need this? I'm amazed if it does - the rationale for
using it is that it's maintained and modern and handles all sorts of
UTF-8 stuff. An
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:09:47 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
> > Can someone point me to the discussion thread that decided this
> > change of man package? I want to review the reasons to make my own
> &
Can someone point me to the discussion thread that decided this
change of man package? I want to review the reasons to make my own
decision on it.
A quick archive search (+man-DB and then +man +Berkeley) didn't reveal
anything useful other than it's a better fit for a UTF-8 system. I can
see the
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:22:53 -0800
Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To both guys,
>
> Thanks for all the hard work on the hardware issues. I promise it is
> appreciated by others on the list whether they're vocal about it or
> not. I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm eager to s
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:51:01 -0500
Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just looking for ways to reduce the temp-system in /tools as much
> as possible. I've built LFS systems before without having ncurses
> there and it works fine. I believe the only issue is texinfo - many
> programs in
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:04:13 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks very much for all your hard work on this Alexander.
Da. +1.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
I shall be shutting down my systems tonight for the Christmas
Holiday, back on Wednesday. SWMBO and I have to deliver Seasonal
Cheer to various parts of the UK over the next few days.
It has been an interesting year, moved house, became a BLFS Editor,
started renovating said house, gave up editing
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:06:53 +0100
"Feldmeier Bernd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you call this that way ok.
> But marking some packs as optional
> that is really educational in my mind.
>
> The user can decide wether to include that
> not essential stuff like devel-packs ...
>
>
Bernd,
We
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:53:11 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 12/18/05 23:25 CST:
>
> > Well, with all due respect DJ, you are flat wrong.
>
> Sometimes my fingers just put on the screen what is in my head.
> Darn the fact that I keep thinking
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:13:37 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> > It's not that no one has anything to say, it is probably the fact
> > that the author of that text is the only one qualified to say
> > anything.
> >
>
> Alright, well thanks for that, Ra
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:33:07 +0200
Ag Hatzim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hate when the people leave.
>
> Please Bruce ignore him.
>
Ag,
It's old news. I didn't leave, just stopped wanting to be an
editor. I'm still here 'putting my oar in' on the inappropriate
occasion.
Bruce already did th
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:37:32 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to announce Andy Benton as a new BLFS Editor. Andy has
> been a long time participant in the BLFS project and brings a lot of
> skill and enthusiasm to the project.
>
> Please help me in welcoming Andy to the
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:50 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> > Bing. You hit the nail on the head there. As Richard said, Fedora Core 4
> > isn't a suitable distro to build the stable version of the book. It
> > should work OK for the development vers
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:54:31 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gueven Bay wrote:
> > Hi dear LFS devs,
> >
> > I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev.
> > Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write)
> > the book but now I want to wr
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:44 -0700
Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The target
> audience of this book has fallen drastically, and my one shot in the
> dark request for trunk would be to rip out a lot of the text that is
> currently in it and take it back down to circa the 3.0 days when it had
>
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:35:50 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, if you start thinking about packages to pull from LFS,
> then you need to start looking at Perl as well. Where do you stop?
>
True. However Perl used to be needed for GCC tests to run (IIRC). We
DO need
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:51:02 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/24/05 21:23 CST:
>
> >>It is a mystery why Unix admins who wouldn't even trust their employer
> >>with more than a normal user account carelessly execute
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:58:24 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is kind of a brave request, and I'm fully prepared to be shot down.
> In fact, I think I'd be surprised if the group went for it. ;) However
> after thinking about this for some time, I'm going to venture a requ
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:28:27 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murphy's law being as it is, the moment we add such a message to the
> book, an updated version of LLH will be released and make it immediately
> out of date!
Anyone tried asking the llh devs about their plans?
--
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:26:02 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I read all the lists (I think, I didn't check for new ones recently).
> > I have not seen this on lfs-dev or blfs-dev. Which lists?
>
> cross-lfs
Damn it, there would be one! I didn't notice that cross-lfs had it
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:09:45 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
> > Gerard suddenly discovered that, in his long absence, the LFS
> > projects have got away from him and went looking for an 'issue' so as
> > to re-estab
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:34:45 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> There seems to be some issues relating UIDs and GIDs especially between
> BLFS and CLFS.
>
> I'm not going to point the finger whose fault this is and I don't care
> about personal issues as I have notice
Bruce (et al),
I no longer wish to be an editor of the BLFS book.
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:43:13 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
> > How about someone writing a 'chroot-script', and including it somewhere in
> > the book.
> > Of course, you'd need two of them.
>
> Ta
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:10:45 +0100
Jörg W Mittag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >> I contacted the gmane guys today to see about getting things organised
> >> with regard to a more consistent mirroring setup for all of the lists,
> >> and am just waitin
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:30:44 -0600
William Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There has been a high amount of traffic related to the chroot
> environment of chapter 6.
> It would be great if we could tie people down, force their eyelids
> open, and make them read! Howeve
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:46:32 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> > At what point do we decide that we're ready to switch over? GRUB 2 still
> > has some missing features (at least missing in regard to what it has
> > said it will include). But from my f
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 01:28:11 -0700
Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:58:51AM -0100, Duncan Webb wrote:
> >
> > Now that we're no longer in summer time in the Makefile for
> > LFS-Bootscripts-3.2.1 there are no rules to install setclock during a
> > reboot or shutdow
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:28:40 -0500 (GMT+5)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Doesn't anyone read the documentation anymore? :) I can understand
> needing to teach them about configure...
One big problem for new Linux friends, and indeed for new users of most large
programs, it the wealth of documenta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Because the current way has symlinks /usr/man -> /usr/share/man, etc.
>> It would be nice to get rid of these depending on how picky you are.
>
>
> Why don't we just have a regular /usr/man directory? Why get rid of
> the
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
>> If anything is
>> written, I'd be glad to peruse it and give an opinion as someone who
>> still has only the loosest grasp of how the hardware is set up.
>
>
> Well, I've written some notes up on this, though they're not entirely
> accurate.
> h
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> The method documented in the svn book doesn't work for me. The script
>> that the 15-alsa.rules file associates with udev's discovery of a
>> control interface is never apparent
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 10/16/05 04:39 CST:
>
>>I just noticed that gtk+-2.8.6 doesn't say it needs glib-2.8.3 or am I
>>missing something here? I'm sure it used to be a required dep.
>
>
> GTK+ requires Pango, which
I just noticed that gtk+-2.8.6 doesn't say it needs glib-2.8.3 or am I
missing something here? I'm sure it used to be a required dep.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>
>> I just noticed that gtk+-2.8.6 doesn't say it needs glib-2.8.3 or am I
>> missing something here?
>
>
> blfs-dev, perhaps? :)
Damn, I used one of those infernal cross-posted mailsing to pic
I just noticed that gtk+-2.8.6 doesn't say it needs glib-2.8.3 or am I
missing something here? I'm sure it used to be a required dep.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello All,
> As a result, this morning I see a malicious message in my Inbox from one
> of the team members here. It suggested that I created this notion of
> leaving LFS as a ruse to gain more recognition and ended with the
> comment that I 'need help'.
It wasn't me, ho
Andrew Benton wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> I think the solution is to move the initial time-sync operation out of
>> the bootscript and into the configuration section of NTP (obviously
>> with enough explanation as to why we need to do this and why it should
>> be a one-time operation, but
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 09/19/05 09:21 CST:
>
>
>>Isn't it strange how every other engineering disipline goes in for lots
>>of useful diagrams, but as soon as you get to the OpenSource movement
>>everything MUST BE just word
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Incidentally, I'd love for someone to draw a nice looking graphic to
> show how kernel events, udev, hotplug, modules, etc. are all related and
> how they function together. If a similar graphic could be drawn without
> the hotplug component in there, a direct comparison
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 05:35:54PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> Again, as I see things, if we want to be using gcc4 we should be
>>> doing it correctly and using the code that is meant for it, ie, glibc
>>
>>
>>
>> True enough, but snapshots su
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> ==
> [coreutils-5.2.1 + current LFS patch]:
>
> bash-3.00# uname -i
> i386
> bash-3.00# uname -p
> athlon-4
> bash-3.00# uname -a
> Linux kyoto 2.6.10-5-386 #1 Thu Sep 8 06:18:41 UTC 2005 i686 athlon-4
> i386 GNU/Linux
> ==
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Archaic and I have put our heads together to try and come up with a more
> reasonable set of Udev rules. These are based on the following criteria:
>
> 1) If a device needs packages outside those installed by LFS then don't
> include a rule for it. (e.g. aud
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 09/13/05 15:00 CST:
>
>
>>I just got though building it on the GCC-4 system. It appears to work
>>well. (gtk+-2.8.3/glib-2.8.1/pango-1.10.0/atk-1.10.1/cairo-1.0.0)
>
>
> Probably should have moved
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Are we ready to move to the new GTK/Glib/Cairo/Pango/ATK stuff. I
> see that David has the GTK+ and Glib bugs spoken for, but I'll be
> adding Cairo to the book this weekend, and was wondering what the
> community thinks about moving forward.
>
> I'd like to ge
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
