Jim Gifford wrote:
> I just started to play around with extlinux, just started to do my
> testing, it does come premade already, but looks like it could be
> built with a standard compiler. I'll give feedback as I progress.
extlinux looks different (...obviously! ;-) ), but it may work fairly
wel
Bryan,
I just started to play around with extlinux, just started to do my
testing, it does come premade already, but looks like it could be built
with a standard compiler. I'll give feedback as I progress.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscrat
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Can we please put aside the egos and pointing fingers and work together
> to reach the common goal?
Absolutely. More than anything, I got a chuckle this morning
reading this thread and ended up posting something that was
actually just me thinking out loud.
I apologize f
Jim Gifford wrote:
> As far as udev rules, CLFS has made the move to use the rules that
> have been included for over a year with no issues at all.
Great! :-)
That (well: the fact that you've seen no issues, at least) means we can
very likely do the same: drop udev-config entirely and go with ud
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>>
>> Too bad that they don't practice what they preach.
>>
>>
> Gee this what your looking for http://cblfs.cross-lfs.org/index.php/License
>
> I see credit given? You owe an apology.
C'mon guys. This is the type of stuff that creates the rift
Charles wrote:
> Hi LFS and CLFS developers,
>
> As an ardent follower of these projects, I'd be very glad to see the
> two projects be one. In my opinion, they are gaining the same result
> by different techniques. If DIY is trying some cross compiling and LFS
> may go after it, then what's left
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote:
>
>
>> I also hope anything from what people have done towards the LFS's 7.0
>> goal, that the appropriate credit is giving.
>>
>
> This is funny.
>
> They copy hundreds of BLFS pages (verbatim, mind you) into
> the work at http://cblfs.cross-lfs.
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I also hope anything from what people have done towards the LFS's 7.0
> goal, that the appropriate credit is giving.
This is funny.
They copy hundreds of BLFS pages (verbatim, mind you) into
the work at http://cblfs.cross-lfs.org/index.php/Main_Page
and don't mention anywhe
Hi LFS and CLFS developers,
As an ardent follower of these projects, I'd be very glad to see the
two projects be one. In my opinion, they are gaining the same result
by different techniques. If DIY is trying some cross compiling and LFS
may go after it, then what's left to the name CLFS? I think i
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Can we resolve any actual differences between the projects (and
> individuals making up the projects) and put aside any perceived disputes
> and work together in a more unified manner again? If so, what are we
> willing to do to be more unified? What possibilities are t
On Dec 6, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Jim Gifford wrote:
David Miller constantly gets on his soapbox about this
on the Sparc Realm of linux.
I don't disagree per se -- I've given up on pure64 for desktop builds
for the moment -- but to be fair x86 has a lot more to gain running
standard apps in 6
Jim Gifford wrote:
> It seems now that LFS is ready to go into the world that CLFS has been
> in for a while. There seems to be a lot of discussions, that are going
> to be a duplication of work, and no one from LFS reaching out to the
> CLFS team for input on what issues we have seen and what y
Jim Gifford wrote:
> It seems now that LFS is ready to go into the world that CLFS has been
> in for a while. There seems to be a lot of discussions, that are going
> to be a duplication of work, and no one from LFS reaching out to the
> CLFS team for input on what issues we have seen and what y
It seems now that LFS is ready to go into the world that CLFS has been
in for a while. There seems to be a lot of discussions, that are going
to be a duplication of work, and no one from LFS reaching out to the
CLFS team for input on what issues we have seen and what you will cross.
It was prop
14 matches
Mail list logo
