Fix escribió:
> On 4/9/07, Ismael Luceno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> My system is somewhat deviated, so a normal LFS may take a bit more,
>> but the gettys/dm will be up as soon as possible, that's the beauty
>> of initng, it does it without any effort :).
>
> InitNG is great __idea__. Howeve
On 4/9/07, Ismael Luceno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My system is somewhat deviated, so a normal LFS may take a bit more,
> but the gettys/dm will be up as soon as possible, that's the beauty
> of initng, it does it without any effort :).
InitNG is great __idea__. However, I know two men at leas
Dan Nicholson escribió:
> 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
> slow. Maybe it's time to look int
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>> X start up, I've discovered, is very dependent on how much groping
>> it has to do. Removing 'auto' from the mouse protocol, saves 5
>> seconds, for instance on one of my systems.
>
> Interesting.
Especially now that the input device layer in the ke
TheOldFellow wrote:
> X start up, I've discovered, is very dependent on how much groping it
> has to do. Removing 'auto' from the mouse protocol, saves 5 seconds,
> for instance on one of my systems.
Interesting.
I have not yet found out how to stop
> it trying all the modes to see which work
On 2/4/07, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> X start up, I've discovered, is very dependent on how much groping it
> has to do. Removing 'auto' from the mouse protocol, saves 5 seconds,
> for instance on one of my systems. I have not yet found out how to stop
> it trying all the modes t
Luca ha scritto:
> I think that it depends on the system you're building, example you could
> build LFS on a flash device, on a machine with another os or building on
> a supercomputer or something requiring an "advanced" setup.
>
>
I don't know if that's what you mean but I could take the ex
Hi Richard.
Thanks for the answer.
I think that it depends on the system you're building, example you could
build LFS on a flash device, on a machine with another os or building on
a supercomputer or something requiring an "advanced" setup.
In a reply I took the simple example of using a diffe
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, or a new booting scheme...
>
> Hi.
>
> I think, but not sur
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, or a new booting scheme...
>>>
Hi.
I think, but not sure about, something not handle
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, or a new booting scheme...
>>>
Hi.
I think, but not sure about, something not handle
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
> slow. Maybe it's time to look into m
On 2/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's say I choose reiserfs; I can't manage it with e2fsprogs, so the base
> system
> should include reiserfsprogs package to manage filesystem.
>
> There is no optional added step, but simply a "potential" base package needed
> added.
>
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
slow. Maybe it's time to look into making improvements. We could
<Messaggio originale:>
Da: Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato:sabato 3 febbraio 2007 18.43
A: LFS Developers Mailinglist
Oggetto: Re: Default filesystem
Hi.
(Sorry but sending mail through ISP page so don't worry about formatting)
I'll t
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 bootable partition - and then making it
>> boot
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 bootable partition - and then making it
> bootable.
>
> This way we can
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
On 2/2/07, Luca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Anyway, I am afraid that any attempt to build LFS on any filesystem
> other than ext3 is now considered an unforgivable deviation from the
> book (reason for such thought: for a long time, reiserfsprogs failed to
> build, and xfsprogs page contained a
[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 packages to LFS (which is
traditionally sup
<Messaggio originale:>
Da: TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato:sabato 3 febbraio 2007 8.45
A:
Cc:
Oggetto: Re: Default filesystem
>I think it's wiki stuff, or hints maybe (if they are not stone dead),
>for the moment. If we get s
than those; I found only a bug after testing it for some months,
> a temporary disk freeze - minutes - after some working hours) so why not
> adding official support for Ext2 (too old and replaced by Ext3), Ext3
> (to be replaced by Ext4), ReiserFS and XFS as possible default filesys
Hi Dan.
I didn't mean that it is said you *must* or some editor's preference or
else I simply mean another thing, here reported some of his words
(Alexader) in a private conversation:
"Anyway, I am afraid that any attempt to build LFS on any filesystem
other than ext3 is now considered an unfo
On 2/2/07, Luca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
You're actually reading more into this than there is. There is no
"officially supported" fil
t for some months,
a temporary disk freeze - minutes - after some working hours) so why not
adding official support for Ext2 (too old and replaced by Ext3), Ext3
(to be replaced by Ext4), ReiserFS and XFS as possible default filesystem?
It should be possible to add experimental support for Reiser
25 matches
Mail list logo
