> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:17:17PM +0100, Richard Downing wrote:
>> So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't think what
>> it is!
>
> HLFS?
>
> Alex :-)
>
> --
Now that sounds interesting!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:17:17PM +0100, Richard Downing wrote:
> So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't think what
> it is!
HLFS?
Alex :-)
--
Pippin
Computer Monkey to the Pelican
www.oxrev.org.uk, www.corpusjcr.org, www.rev.org.uk
pgpWLzymYuM1G.pgp
Description: PGP s
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
> I'm not sure runit is the right choice for LFS in general, but I sure
> like it, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings any to see it as a hint. (I
> know, I should just write the hint and stop whining. Maybe I will.)
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/build
On Aug 20, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't
think what
it is!
Yep, and that's why I can both understand Randy's and the community's
concerns about the lack of activity, but then wonder what activity
it is
they'd l
I am aware of that. I was giving an overview of why I chose LFS, where
I am in the LFS build process and where I intend to go with it. This
wasn't a call for help (for now), but was to say that there are new
people interested in the LFS project.
Excellent, Reece! Welcome! Yes, I think if anyth
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:48:23PM +0100, Reece Dunn wrote:
> >
> > LFS is an ideal distribution for be, because:
> > * I already know how to use bash, rm, tar and the like from cygwin;
> > * it gives me the opportunity to discover Linux things gradually (like
> > using
> >
Dennis J Perkins wrote:
I'm more interested in CLFS at the moment because I have a Turion 64 to
play with. Are there plans to merge the two into one project?
This will not happen due to the nature of the CLFS project, we are going
to have 3 different type of books, Right now our focus is on
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:48:23PM +0100, Reece Dunn wrote:
>
> I am interested in the (C/B)LFS project. For a while now, I have wanted to
> make the move from Windows to Linux. I have been using cygwin for a long
> time now, so am familiar with the Linux command line, and have been using
> more a
Matthew Burges wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't think what
> > it is!
>
> Yep, and that's why I can both understand Randy's and the community's
> concerns about the lack of activity, but then wonder what activity it is
> they'
Hi Matthew,
>> What I'm missing is the "be"-version we had years ago. This bleeding edge
>> version was where all the fun has been brought to us. From time to time,
>> the beLFS didnt work, had a lot of bugs, typos and all the stuff.
>
> Doesn't sound like the particular level of quality we striv
Dennis J Perkins wrote:
>>> So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't think what
>>> it is!
>> Yep, and that's why I can both understand Randy's and the community's
>> concerns about the lack of activity, but then wonder what activity it is
>> they'd like to see.
>
> Maybe
Dennis J Perkins wrote:
>
> Maybe replacing sysvinit with runit (?) or something similar for faster
> booting? Might be better as a hint or BLFS, altho I would prefer having
> a choice of packages when sysvinit is installed. That would probably
> cause problems with the bootscripts tho.
>
>
Ta
>
> > So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I can't think what
> > it is!
>
> Yep, and that's why I can both understand Randy's and the community's
> concerns about the lack of activity, but then wonder what activity it is
> they'd like to see.
Maybe replacing sysvinit with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big problem is that a lot of the old problems have now been solved.
Agreed.
Even the actual book editing isn't as difficult as once it was. Good
XML has taken all the struggle out of even that.
Agreed.
So I think the project needs a challenge. Trouble is I
Thomas Trepl wrote:
What I'm missing is the "be"-version we had years ago. This bleeding edge
version was where all the fun has been brought to us. From time to time, the
beLFS didnt work, had a lot of bugs, typos and all the stuff.
Doesn't sound like the particular level of quality we strive
Randy McMurchy wrote:
The entire LFS project seems to be in the toilet. Am I the only one
that thinks this?
No.
Am I over reacting?
No.
Is there anyone else concerned about the health of the project?
Yes.
--
Despite the fact that I have stopped using it myself, an
Randy McMurchy wrote:
The entire LFS project seems to be in the toilet. Am I the only one
that thinks this?
No.
Am I over reacting?
No.
Is there anyone else concerned about the health of the project?
Yes.
--
Despite the fact that I have stopped using it myself, an
On Saturday 19 August 2006 06:59, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
> occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
> as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
> on at all any mo
Randy McMurchy linuxfromscratch.org> writes:
>
> I am really concerned about the health of the entire overall project.
Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>There really hasn't been much technical discussion on the lists
>recently, There hasn't been any major changes in a while. I think i
On 8/19/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Glibc I've not upgraded because I was put off by upstream's
> recommendation not to run it in production environments coupled with a
> couple of bugs I've read about on the lfs lists.
This patch definitely needs to be
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Glibc I've not upgraded because I was put off by upstream's
> recommendation not to run it in production environments coupled with a
> couple of bugs I've read about on the lfs lists. They've probably
> been fixed by patches, but I've lost track of those! If anyone can
Joe Ciccone wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
on at all any more within the LFS project.
As
El Sábado, 19 de Agosto de 2006 06:59, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> Recently there was a call for funds to replace the Belgarath server.
> Funds were raised in a matter of days. For all practical purposes,
> anyone who contributed money, wasted it. That call for funds (and the
> raising of it) was *
On 8/18/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
on at all any more within the LFS p
Randy,
CLFS is on a stabilization cycle right now. The entire CLFS team is
going through the book with a fine tooth comb to get a release out very
soon. Except to see RC4 in the next few days, then in a week or so of no
changes the final release of 1.0.0.
I can't speak for the other pro
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
> occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
> as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
> on at all any more within the LFS project.
>
CL
Hi all,
Noted that there is some minor trivial updates to CLFS recently, the
occasional package updates to LFS, and updates to jalfs (which is only
as good as the [x]LFS books), there really is no development going
on at all any more within the LFS project.
Discussion (you know, where people inte
27 matches
Mail list logo
