Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/12/06 21:58 CST:
> On the other hand, adding dependency info about LFS packages to BLFS now
> would make things somewhat easier when an LFS package is removed or
> replaced.
I don't think you've understood the point of the discussion, Chris.
It is simply not
Chris Staub wrote:
> On the other hand, adding dependency info about LFS packages to BLFS now
> would make things somewhat easier when an LFS package is removed or
> replaced. Perhaps, to cover people who don't build every LFS package as
> well as the future possibility of an LFS package being rem
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/10/06 12:41 CST:
Those are good picks since there is a lot of linking to these packages
in BLFS. A special policy would have to be approved, though.
It is not so much a policy being approved, it would be more a method
of *how to do
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, but I would really quite like to see
> de
On 1/10/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Where would it end? Reader X wants LFS package A, B, and C listed
> in BLFS. Reader Y wants package D, E and F listed. And so forth
> and so on.
>
Yeah, I know. It's totally subjective and would be a PITA. Maybe
I'll get around to writing
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/10/06 12:41 CST:
> Those are good picks since there is a lot of linking to these packages
> in BLFS. A special policy would have to be approved, though.
It is not so much a policy being approved, it would be more a method
of *how to do it*. Would it just be
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Some policy would have to be made to prevent
>>>packages like coreutils and gawk that would show up everywhere. Just
>>>a thought. I guess BDB is the main
On 1/10/06, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Some policy would have to be made to prevent
> > packages like coreutils and gawk that would show up everywhere. Just
> > a thought. I guess BDB is the main one that bugs me.
>
>
On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some policy would have to be made to prevent
> packages like coreutils and gawk that would show up everywhere. Just
> a thought. I guess BDB is the main one that bugs me.
Ditto. For me, in the current LFS book, I would prefer BLFS mention
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/10/06 07:59 CST:
>
>
>>I'm in that minority too. I haven't suggested it because I know that
>>BLFS always assumes that you have a base LFS system including every
>>package in LFS, but it would still be nice to have all the dependency
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/10/06 08:11 CST:
> I have no idea how that would be feasible, but I agree. I'd like to
> know what BLFS packages use BDB, especially since it's still included
> in the BLFS book. Some policy would have to be made to prevent
> packages like coreutils and gawk
Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/10/06 07:59 CST:
> I'm in that minority too. I haven't suggested it because I know that
> BLFS always assumes that you have a base LFS system including every
> package in LFS, but it would still be nice to have all the dependency
> information. Also, you'd pr
On 1/10/06, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:25:45 -0600
> Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, actually, they have been commented out. It would be really
> > easy to
> >
> > grep -lr 'linkend="db"/>' *
> >
> > from the root of the XML tree an
Richard A Downing 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:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:10:04 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The BDB dependencies have already been removed from SVN
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 have already been removed from SVN BLFS.
> >
> >
15 matches
Mail list logo
