On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:10:30 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> > The instructions really should be in BLFS. That way peeps can roll
> > their own. This isn't IMO LFS material.
>
> I didn't intend to put this in LFS Richard. It was jsut to s
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:28:25 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been playing with GRUB2 and splash screens. I've got it working so
> I wanted to make an lfs screen with a somewhat dark background so that
> the menu would show over it.
>
> I played around with gimp and came up with:
>
> http
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 13:40 -0700, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:24:18 +0000, TheOldFellow
> wrote:
> > Regarding the Essential Pre-Reading Hint. Although this has been here
> > for years, it also hasn't been maintained or updated for years either.
>
Regarding the Essential Pre-Reading Hint. Although this has been here
for years, it also hasn't been maintained or updated for years either.
Isn't it about time that the link was removed?
I got an email about it today, and had to tell the enquirer that I had
no plans to update it, and the even th
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:44:37 -0700
Gordon Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
If you MUST reply to a digest, do try and get the Subject right.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:42:36 -0600
DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as KDE is concerned, I'm really hoping that by the time BLFS is
> ramping up for 7.0, KDE-4 will be feature complete and that particular
> issue isn't one any longer.
Oh I do like humour on the lists So 7 is ta
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:51:51 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of LFS
> Version 6.4.
Big thank you to Bruce for coordinating the effort. And to the other
editors for waking LFS up again.
I'm in the middle of buildi
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:08:07 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've gone a long time saying that we aren't a distro. But in a sense we
> are. The book is _very_ specific as to its instructions. If you follow
> it you have an LFS system. (We even have our own bootscripts!). If y
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:39:27 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know of any outstanding issues except the GMP issue with some
> combinations of hardware and CFLAGS setting. Although we recommend not using
> CFLAGS, that could be addressed with a note.
>
>-- Bruce
>
I'
Just a note to say that I built and booted it today. No issues. I
even ran almost all the tests. I added Device-mapper+LVM2 and replaced
SysVinit with runit as is my wont, so this doesn't test the bootscripts.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:53:42 +
TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:03:53 +1100
> Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > > Umm, no. jhalfs parses the xml of the book and creates a Mak
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:03:53 +1100
Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > Umm, no. jhalfs parses the xml of the book and creates a Makefile that
> > builds
> > by the LFS book. Actually, it is quite convenient.
>
> Umm, yes. It's *VERY* convenient. I should know..
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:40:24 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know that we've talked about this before but given the events of the
> past year or so, I'd like to revisit this briefly.
>
> Alexander and I have been talking and we're trying to take a very
> realist
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:48:13 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > I'm a bit hazy on this and don't want to take to time to try to dig through
> > the
> > archives. However, I think Robert is right. At the time we just wanted to
> > promote the tools that a
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:00:34 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. Do #1 and suppress the installation of the wall program in the
> Sysvinit instructions.
>
> I like #3 but I've not investigated what it takes to suppress the
> installation of the wall program from either package.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:51:15 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, in Chapter 6 I know I wouldn't like to see statically
> linked GMP and MPFR in GCC as I build them later on and it seems
> silly to have a package statically linked in GCC and all other
> packages link dynamica
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:09:56 -0500
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have added a new milestone, 6.4, for the current effort. It can be removed
> if
> the consensus is that what we are currently working should be 7.0.
>
> My understanding is that we are updating the packages current
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:07:26 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > Pleased to see you guys have accepted this. I'm not sure that
> > offering you a welcome is appropriate, you've both been here longer
> > than I have, but for sure you have my support.
>
> Actua
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:51:09 -0700
"Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:31 AM, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just a progress report. Nothing much to say though, it seems solid as
> > a rock. I've been
Just a progress report. Nothing much to say though, it seems solid as
a rock. I've been running Apache/PHP/MySQL/Joomla on it all week -
zero-issues.
Today I built Xorg7-almost7.4 using the very latest stuff that seems to
work OK, including Mesa-7.1 and Xorg-Server-1.4.00.906, everything
compile
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:53:52 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > With the few suggestions from Greg, this looks quite good enough for
> > SVN, and moves everything well forward.
>
> I'd like to see us also use a snapshot of G
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:15:40 +0100
TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm now up to the end of a successful build of glibc in Ch6. Now I'm
> off to bed. Start again tomorrow. Well done DJ.
>
> R.
Finished and first booted on my Athlon-XP. No real probl
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:05:17 +1000
Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
> > FYI: building them in the tools directory is going to be problematic.
> > During the stage 1 build of gcc, the make system is unable to locate
> > the libmpfr.so.1 library, and so aborts.
>
> G
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:07:26 +0100
TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:32:32 -0500
> DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > DJ Lucas wrote:
> > > Anybody tried that combo yet? I got bored and I am flying
> > > blind
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:32:32 -0500
DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
> > Anybody tried that combo yet? I got bored and I am flying
> > blind..haven't done an experimental/SVN build in a long time (pre
> > 6.3?).
> Okay, finished...not tested at all, haven't even booted it y
>> I think the consensus we're trying to reach is what to do with the
>> bootscripts if we do add them back to an Appendix as Bruce suggested.
>> Do we still install the bootscripts the current way or does the
>> appendix become a *replacement* for the bootscript package installation
>> in chapter
On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:39:05 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:06:00 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> TheOldFellow wrote:
>> (Bruce, give my warm regards to Austin - a fine city that I have
>> enjoyed on a number of occ
On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:06:00 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>> Could some kind American or Canadian soul post a link to something that
>> explains this concept as it applies to a corporation?
My thanks to Jaqui and Bruce for the info - very different from th
Could some kind American or Canadian soul post a link to something that
explains this concept as it applies to a corporation? I think some of us
Non-NA peeps could do with an understanding of that it means, and IANAL!
I presume it cheaper than a Delaware Corporation :-)
For what little it's w
On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:03:36 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
>> Take a look at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/wiki/LFSFuture
>
> In some cases, the changes proposed only require general agreement of
> what to do and the accomplishment of the task would be relatively ea
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-05-16-004-26-OP-OO
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:25:01 -0700
"J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I decided that I wanted to take a look at init-ng while doing my current
> test build with the latest svn version of the book.
> once the build is done I'll be able to decide if it is worth using and
> adding a hint for
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:54:37 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I really do disagree with this stance. As an educative, as well as
> > practical project, we should show at least one worked example. Just
> > like we do with SysVInit and the bootscripts (which several of us
> > d
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:11:53 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The more we discuss it, the more PM becomes a focal point. I agree with
> Greg Schafer in that the actual choice of PM is a user's choice in the
> end and shouldn't matter.
>
> About all we should attempt to do is i
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:30:50 +1100
Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having said that, I believe
> PM should be a personal thing, which is why I would never advise anyone
> "you must XYZ as your PM". ie: I would never select a default PM for LFS.
On the other hand, being of the educative-ob
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:35:00 +
TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry but I can't continue to take this mailing list. Despite
> request by Gerard to STFU, the noise continues. I had hoped that ther
> was some hope for a new project, one that I might e
I'm sorry but I can't continue to take this mailing list. Despite
request by Gerard to STFU, the noise continues. I had hoped that ther
was some hope for a new project, one that I might enjoy being part of.
But there is ONE character who's ego is larger than I can take.
If he goes away, would so
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:06:41 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if LFS wasn't in book form anymore. What if it's an interactive
> program instead. A 100% merge of LFS, BLFS, ALFS, LFS.
I like this.
The design could be quite difficult as it probably will
need to run in a nu
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:19:48 +0300
Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2008 10:35, TheOldFellow wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:56 +0300
> > Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:17:45 -0600
R. Quenett<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:07 TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> " provided
> " the educational stuff is retained.
>
> But /what/ educational stuff?
R,
I think I almost agree with you
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:56 +0300
Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for
> > which I would vote), then
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:06:09 -0800
"J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:29:43 -0700
> > Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> True, LFS isn't targeted to those people
>
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:00:40 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/27, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > True nuff, but we also say: If you stick to the book you'll build a
> > working system. That's the LFS gu
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:00:01 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The premise is simple actually. It's not a paradigm shift. We've all
> talked about it over and over again, rehashed it to death why it can't
> be done: combine our various projects.
Great idea, makes best use of
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:29:43 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, LFS isn't targeted to those people
It's always intrigued me to wonder: 'what if LFS was targeted at
Windows users?' or, 'how would a grade school kid build a linux
system?'
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:07:15 -0600
Robert Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 12:37:50 pm TheOldFellow wrote:
> >
> > My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method,
> > AND have a Package Management system, AND have a
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:49:06 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> > couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> > degrading the quality of LFS)
> >
> >
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:17:16 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ey all,
>
> The LFS project is almost nine years old. LFS 1.0 was released on
> December 16, 1999. That was the year I had moved to Canada, before my
> immigration was even finalized. Earlier that year I started on
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:09:04 -0500
Ivan Kabaivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry for sounding the alarm without merit :-)
Hey, isn't it good to see that:
1) Someone is paying attention.
2) Some people actually understand building the toolchain.
Well it makes me feel more confident any
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:15:26 -0700
"Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Has anyone tried a build with this?
> > I was about to build a new system and noticed that glibc has been
> > minor
Has anyone tried a build with this?
I was about to build a new system and noticed that glibc has been
minor-inced again. (Can't these guys pause from breath once in a
while! :)
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:28:22 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I changed it back to the way it was yesterday. There might be a few
> residual posts in tickets that have already been sent to lfs-dev, but
> they'll disappear before long.
Thanks, I appreciate it. Most of your ide
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:13:58 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I said, I can change it back if everyone hates it.
>
One other thing I REALLY don't like is that the sender is always
[LFS Trac]. It just looks like the guy or gal called [LFS Trac] is
having a discussion with t
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:17:41 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, let's try this out then. If people scream we can change it back.
Can't say I like it much. It makes the list messy to read. I think
it's just a change for changes sake, and we've had the other way for
years wi
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:14:37 -0700
"Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that 6.3 is finally done, I wanted to think about things that
> could be done for the 7.0 release. These are in addition to the normal
> updates/bug fixes/etc.
> * LSB bootscripts - I'd like to shed the current cu
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:50:02 +0100
Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > Konnichiwa,
> >
> > The archive is up now. Thanks for this, Jeremy.
> >
> > R.
> >
> Arragato!
>
> Alan
>
Do itashimashite.
R.
--
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:44:03 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hola,
>
> Just dropping a note to say that they've created the news gateway for
> the livecd mailing list on Gmane.org. I also requested that archives
> be imported for it, but I'm not seeing that yet. CC'ing lfs-dev
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:27:40 -0500
Mike Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> work. I think one of the things that makes LFS so nice is inclusion
> of configuration
> files/info needed to make some of the software packages work. For the
> most part, getting the build configuration and actual build
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:03:29 +0600
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > If you use some little odd-ball PM, rather than, say RPM you will
> > end up spending more development effort on the PM than on the
> > Live
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:02:07 -0400
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As I've been giving some thought to what might make the LiveCD
> project more manageable, more open to community development and
> better all around, it occurred to me that our build method could be
> adjus
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:21:14 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [cc'd to LFS-Dev as this is supposed to be a nice attaboy to the
> LFS devs]
>
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 08/11/07 19:45 CST:
>
> > It's the least I could do after you powered through so many
> > commits ove
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:19:28 -0500
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've redone the acknowledgments page in my sandbox, but have not
> committed yet. Does this look OK to everybody?
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/lfs-book/appendices/acknowledgements.html
>
> -- Bruce
See
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:58 +0600
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > It wouldn't be beyond the wit of Man to move the existing Hints into
> > the Wiki either.
> >
> s/existing/working/
>
If you mean &#
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:24:34 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Mostly just an FYI, so we can start working on a method to get the
> hints project going again.
>
> There is over 10 hints in the span of over 3 months waiting to be
> committed into the hints repo. Someon
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:45:43 +0100
TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:53:17 -0500
> Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the first
> > release candidat
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:53:17 -0500
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the first
> release candidate of LFS 6.3. Please see
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.3-rc1/chapter01/whatsnew.html
> for a complete list of new packages
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:29:52 -0600
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The LiveCD project rarely hears much back from its end users, unless
> Of course any other thoughts or comments are welcome. We really just
> need to get an idea of how useful our project is to the community. If
> it'
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:09:18 -0600
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides the fact that ads are evil and all that, can anybody offer up
> a good reason not to pursue this?
Yep. Advertising is evil, almost as bad as practical-democracy. BUT,
provided the sources are clearly from an
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:21:51 +0200
"Felix M. Palmen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20070419 15:39]:
> > A sig, a pgp-sig and an x-face. I think I'd rather have HTML mail.
>
> Whether you do or do not like my emails i
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:31:03 +0200
"Felix M. Palmen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's still abusing a feature for the wrong purpose and it's also
> putting load on other people's systems (queue management) for solving
> a local problem (spam sent to your own host).
>
> Regards, Felix
>
A sig,
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:32:54 -0500
Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem as we can tell is that many large ISPs use multiple
> servers for outgoing MTAs. This causes a delay for every server.
> Additionally, the retry time is up to the sender and delays of hours
> is not uncommon
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:40:12 -0600
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> Inspired by an email from Richard Downing, I decided to look into
> using greylisting to help fight spam. If you haven't heard of it
> before see: http://www.greylisting.org
Did you see this system
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:17:03 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/07/07 20:40 CST:
>
> > I tried a Postfix implementation called Postgrey on my own personal
> > server and the results were very good. (See
> > http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/). Ba
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> So,Dan,I applaud your efforts and anyone else that cares and contributes with
> ideas/patches
> about speeding the booting process,whatever that means -
> Parallelizing the bootscripts? -
> Using dash instead of bash? -
> Using an alternative init system? Upstart?
If
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:28:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The memory space is generally not significant either because only one
>> copy of the code is in memory at any time. The difference would be data
>> space.
>>
> /me admits to hoping someone would try this - there w
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> (However, the biggest delay on my machine is udev, and we can't
> parallelize that away. The devices that udevd creates are needed for
> both checkfs and mountfs, and mountfs is probably required for most
> other scripts. But whatever.)
Me too. I've considered a MAKEDEV
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On 2/20/07, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
On the topic of parallelizing the bootscripts, what do people think
about doing this? DJ has added some easily-parallelizable scripts to
the contrib/ directory in
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/19/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>> After the error the other day with dash and glibc-2.3.6,
>> I prefer to install bash and start all the bootscripts #!/bin/bash to
>> make it clear that anyo
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> After the error the other day with dash and glibc-2.3.6,
I prefer to install bash and start all the bootscripts #!/bin/bash to
make it clear that anyone who wants to use another shell is on their
own. :-)
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: h
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/06/07 00:36 CST:
>
>> db-4.5.20-build:ownership of `/usr/share/doc/db-4.5.20' retained as root:root
>
> I concur with Ag's report about BDB. Do note however, that all files
> under the /usr/share/doc/db-4.5.20 dir still need to be
Luca wrote:
> TheOldFellow ha scritto:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I need is something it can't handle, like Udev for several months a
>>>> year ago, o
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What I need is something it can't handle, like Udev for several months a
>> year ago, or a new booting scheme...
>
> This is actually something I want to bring up. Our booting is dog
>
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/3/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Having read this and thought about it some more, I guess I'd suggest
>> changing the book to build into a directory, then add some chapters on
>> moving the built system to a bootabl
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So a, possible bad or wrong, idea but why not moving file system tools from
>> BLFS
>> (as states the name it's beyond lfs) to LFS (supposing a different fs instead
>> of ext3) ?
>
> The problem is that this would introduce optional packa
Luca wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Only a reflection.
> LFS officially supports Ext3 as default file-system and in BLFS book we
> find under File Systems ReiserFS and XFS progs. These filesystems are
> judged stable (Reiser4 is not judgeable as it is too young but it's
> faster than those; I found only a bu
Declan Naughton wrote:
>> irc has not been installed on the new server yet. Its another
>> opportunity for me to learn something new. :(
>
> Why don't we just use Freenode? There is an established #lfs channel
> there. Do we really need to run our own IRC server?
>
Two reasons from me.
1) In
Am I right in thinking that there is now no LFS irc channel? Or have a
missed some announcement that hasn't made the redered books yet?
R.
* Looking up irc.linuxfromscratch.org
* Connecting to irc.linuxfromscratch.org (216.171.237.234) port 6667...
* Connection failed. Error: Connection refused
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
I know I'm guilty as much as anyone for lack of contribution
recently, though I *have* tried a couple of times to get
something done, but Belgarath ended up being down, or I could
not send mail, or whatever. I don't believe this Belgarath
upgrade is going to happen,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 05/29/06 11:25 CST:
What Holy Day?
Please, Richard, be careful here. Lest someone will be truly offended.
In America, this day is revered in memory of friends and family members
that have paid the ultimate sacrifice in time of war
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Who put you in charge of something as important as changing the
fundamental way things are done? You gotta be kidding. You are
going to call for a vote during a holiday weekend and end it
during that same holiday weekend. Totally unreasonable.
What Holy Day?
R.
--
http:
Shane Shields wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
Guys,
I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts
and udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so
deep that Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to whom
about what.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:18:40PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
Guys,
I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts and
udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so deep that
Thunderbird gives up. So I can't
Guys,
I'm having real problems following the 'discussions' on bootscripts and
udev. The main issue is that the thread nesting has gotten so deep that
Thunderbird gives up. So I can't see who said what to whom about what.
God knows how Bruce will be able to follow it when he gets back from
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:35:09PM +0100, TheOldFellow wrote:
What I can't understand is why, when the CLFS rules have been working
for months, that LFS had to reinvent the wheel?
The LFS rules have existed since at least June 15, 2004. They predate the
CLFS book.
Yes
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt,
I did respond, but you chose to ignore it.
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2006-May/057282.html
No, I didn't ignore it. I saw that you said "the rules are not that
different". At which point I was left scratching
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
The bottom line is if it's Alex or Dan, it needs it's own repo. With
branches for LFS and CLFS, so if we make some changes, then Alex or
Dan can merge the changes in.
On similar note I talked to DJ about this also, a separate repo for
bootscripts, wi
r3al1tych3ck wrote:
Sorry Bruce. Not embarrassed here.
By top posters never learn!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
and you'll be
reaching for some sort of a rescue dis{c,k}
Even us Brits gave up on that one long ago, only the Romans are still
using disci. :-)
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the
Following my house move, and change of ISP, my LFS documents:
LFS-References
Essential Pre-reading for LFS
How to convert LFS to use runit instead of SysVinit
are back on-line in my new domain.
http://www.langside.org.uk/lfsdocs
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscra
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>>I also wanted to get some internationalisation work sorted out for LFS,
>>
>>so where are the non-8bit-language (indeed, apart from Manuel and Alex,
>>where are the non-A
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
