http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1715
I think LFS could take a few pointers from this.
Having decent infrastructure is important, but truthfully, I favour the
BSD development model over that of Linux. The BSDs' code quality is
vastly superior, and the single main reason why is because
What I find really sad is this project is about two years older then
Gentoo and Arch Linux, but those projects have much better
documentation and a lot more people involved in the development and a
lot more users and a lot more activity on their communications
channels: forums, mailings
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:36 -0500
Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been looking at LSB and in running a couple of basic checks find
that we have some missing libraries and programs in LFS/BLFS to get
to compliance. The discussion below is only a start. There may be
more needed
Is this an alternative to alfs or something more different [sorry about
the English there - yeuckkk!] than that?
Is it suitable for non LFS Developers?
Hi Alan,
I put together something a bit back to automate installation of other
applications. You'd need to write profiles for it for LFS,
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'.
Jeremy,
I will admit that sort of thing was my main
Goodybye, Jeremy,
I learnt some things from you, and although I probably didn't get to know
you all that well, I liked talking to you in #lfs-support when I did.
Seeing as you were also wearing as many hats as you were, I'm sure this will
also be a great loss to the project.
I understand the need
alnix /usr/pkgsrc/x11/xorg-server $ bmake clean clean-depends
Take care use bmake instead of make (bmake is NetBSD make).
I also however had a lot of problems with mk.conf. The structure of pkgsrc
IMHO is a mess...modularity gone mad. There are random includes out to files
which at times are
And why not? If some pieces were not required, then why did you build
them in the first place?
I only really consider package management important I will admit from the
context of multi-part software suites...like KDE as one example. In that
scenario, the entire system has QT as a
Which is ... odd, because IIRC, ash and sh don't *have* a source
builtin. [1] All they have is ., but if that doesn't work in zsh,
we'll be forced to remove support for one or the other shell.
AFAIK, the problem there is only related to zsh's /bin/sh compatibility
mode...Zsh when called by
According to this:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5 and a number of articles
I've seen on Slashdot, MD5 is apparently no longer entirely secure...there's a
story on /. at the moment actually about Microsoft dropping MD5 for use in
Vista.
Should we possibly start considering something else? I
In what context? For hashing our own tarballs? Or do you mean not
Yes...hashing our own tarballs. I hadn't thought of it, but it makes sense
that we'd need to keep it for backward compatibility.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Another alternative to using md5sums to check the integity of a system
is to use sha1sums in addition to md5sums. It is not computationally
feasable to produce two files that have the same md5sum *and* sha1sum.
That sounds like a good idea.
--
Both shasum and the library it needs, mhash, are available from here if anyone
is interested.
http://www.netsw.org/crypto/hash/
The below address is the sourceforge download page for mhash as well.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4286
--
sha1sum is included in coreutils and is standard on LFS.
It is? Excuse me for a minute while I go and wipe the egg off my face. ;-)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
though is, when I've got the patches working, where do I
submit them to...here, or the patches list?
Thanks in advance,
Petrus
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Before you send patches, they need to work on ash as well, which IIRC,
is the closest representation of the original bourne shell.
Thanks. I will admit that my current fix is rather a blunt instrument, in the
sense that it simply checks to see if the /bin/sh symlink points to bash, and
if it
16 matches
Mail list logo
