-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Anderson Lizardo wrote:
>
>> Yes, the lfswww group is still needed (and it needs to be synced
>> everytime commits privileges are given to someone).
>
>
> Thanks. For some reason I was confusing the 'cvslfs' and 'lfswww'
>
Anderson Lizardo wrote:
Yes, the lfswww group is still needed (and it needs to be synced
everytime commits privileges are given to someone).
Thanks. For some reason I was confusing the 'cvslfs' and 'lfswww'
groups last night, and it was the 'cvs' related groups I was concerned
about still h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>>> Randy would need to be added to the svnwww and lfswww groups.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is lfswww still being used for website stuff? If so I'd rather it die
>> a quick death by hav
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Is the clock on your machine perhaps running about 20 minutes fast?
Thanks a lot Randy, it was indeed fast. Fixed now.
Justin
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy would need to be added to the svnwww and lfswww groups.
Is lfswww still being used for website stuff? If so I'd rather it die a
quick death by having any scripts or other files to be owned by svnwww
instead.
Yes, I believe it's still b
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Randy would need to be added to the svnwww and lfswww groups.
Is lfswww still being used for website stuff? If so I'd rather it die a
quick death by having any scripts or other files to be owned by svnwww
instead.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailm
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Anyway, sure, I'm volunteering again. :-)
OK, that's great, thanks. You've now got commit privs to the website
repository (www2), so feel free to tackle it whenever you have the time.
If you're not subscribed to website@linuxfromscratch.org, you might
want to do tha
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Wow, I must have been in an "Thou shalt not delegate anything" mood at
the time! If you are still willing to maintain it, that'd be great, if
not I'll open the position up for someone else to take on.
Randy would need to be added to the svnwww and lfswww groups.
--
J
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 09/19/05 14:29 CST:
> Wow, I must have been in an "Thou shalt not delegate anything" mood at
> the time! If you are still willing to maintain it, that'd be great, if
> not I'll open the position up for someone else to take on.
Not sure it was like that, but
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/19/05 13:55 CST:
There are others that are just as outdated. Anyway, just thought I'd
mention it. I don't have the time to put into it, but perhaps someone
else does?
Months ago I volunteered to Matt to maintain the FAQ, but he po
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Justin Knierim wrote these words on 09/19/05 14:20 CST:
[snip]
Is the clock on your machine perhaps running about 20 minutes fast?
Justin actually lives in the future. You didn't know? ;)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromsc
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Months ago I volunteered to Matt to maintain the FAQ, but he politely
said that it didn't need a maintainer and to just in patches to -dev
for any updates I felt might be needed.
Hrm. That sounds somewhat familiar. Though I had forgotten it if I had
read it.
Well, the
Justin Knierim wrote these words on 09/19/05 14:20 CST:
[snip]
Is the clock on your machine perhaps running about 20 minutes fast?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
14:04:00 up 170 days, 13:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
There are others that are just as outdated. Anyway, just thought I'd
mention it. I don't have the time to put into it, but perhaps someone
else does?
I would volunteer but feel unfit for the job as I don't do much support
via lfs-support or #lfs-support. Until then I
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 09/19/05 13:55 CST:
> There are others that are just as outdated. Anyway, just thought I'd
> mention it. I don't have the time to put into it, but perhaps someone
> else does?
Months ago I volunteered to Matt to maintain the FAQ, but he politely
said that it
Hey Guys,
The FAQ needs some attention. And it would be nice if we had someone to
maintain it regularly again. For example:
"Kernel panic: VFS: unable to mount root fs
There are several reasons why the kernel might be unable to mount
the root filesystem.
* Did you specify the c
16 matches
Mail list logo