Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Bryan Kadzban wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: What's wrong with the /{proc,dev}/bus/usb permissions? The way I understand it (and Alexander, correct me if I'm wrong), the permissions we apply by default to those directories allow read/write for all members of a fixed group. You are

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Bryan Kadzban wrote: > the permissions we apply by default to those directories Err, "directories and device files", that is. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See t

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: > What's wrong with the /{proc,dev}/bus/usb permissions? The way I understand it (and Alexander, correct me if I'm wrong), the permissions we apply by default to those directories allow read/write for all members of a fixed group. If one specific user needs access to only o

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: I was wrong. Due to our insecure /{proc,dev}/bus/usb permissions, run_hotplugd is not needed by default for gphoto2. What's wrong with the /{proc,dev}/bus/usb permissions? I'd obviously prefer them to be as secure as possible. If that means someone has to dig o

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

I wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: I was actually going to propose adding all of the helpers (with the obvious omission of the deprecated/unsupported run_hotplugd and run_devd helpers). That way, if folks need them for their rules then they'll be available. Folks that use gphoto2 still need

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: I was actually going to propose adding all of the helpers (with the obvious omission of the deprecated/unsupported run_hotplugd and run_devd helpers). That way, if folks need them for their rules then they'll be available. Folks that use gphoto2 still need the run_hot

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: And now coldplugging and hotplugging work automagically! So, is there anything else required, aside from the obvious expansion of the above modprobe related rules to other subsystems, etc? Build and install the firmware helper. Jim Giffor

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: And now coldplugging and hotplugging work automagically! So, is there anything else required, aside from the obvious expansion of the above modprobe related rules to other subsystems, etc? Build and install the firmware helper. Jim Gifford has a shall script version o

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: > I added the following (shamelessly nicked from the Redhat examples > shipped in the udev tarball): > > ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="usb", MODALIAS=="*", \ > RUN+="/sbin/modprobe $modalias" Shouldn't that be: ... MODALIAS="?*" ... Or is that only for environment variable

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: My wild guess is that you removed the hotplug initscript, but forgot to remove stuff from /etc/hotplug.d and still have the run_hotplugd rule. I had removed the run_hotplugd rule, but obviously either not rebooted or restarted udevd. I also had old copies of run_

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Ubuntu is irrelevant here. My wild guess is that you removed the hotplug initscript, but forgot to remove stuff from /etc/hotplug.d and still have the run_hotplugd rule. This runs the agents for every uevent. Look how long it takes for an empty bash script to run 80

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: http://ftp.jg555.com/udev/boot.udev has a trigger_device_events() function. This requires a 2.6.15-rc kernel (which we'd need anyway for proper input subsystem handling), but perhaps more importantly this adds approximately 10 seconds on to my boot times (compared to a

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Result: if you turn the computer on with the flash drive already plugged in, the usb-storage module will not be loaded and you won't see the flash drive before you re-plug it. Thanks Alexander. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-hotplug-devel&m=113147546806367&

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: > Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > > Matthew Burgess wrote: > >> diff -Naur lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.orig/Makefile > >> lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/Makefile > >> --- lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.orig/Makefile2005-05-26 > >> 20:08:09.0 + > >> +++ lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/Makefile

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: diff -Naur lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.orig/Makefile lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/Makefile --- lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.orig/Makefile2005-05-26 20:08:09.0 + +++ lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/Makefile2005-11-30 13:36:09.0 + @@ -27,7 +

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: diff -Naur lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.orig/Makefile lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/Makefile --- lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.orig/Makefile 2005-05-26 20:08:09.0 + +++ lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/Makefile 2005-11-30 13:36:09.0 + @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ install -m ${CONF

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matthew Burgess wrote: Jim Gifford wrote: I'm getting this in cross-lfs as soon as it gets out. Like I said when you mentioned this last week, Jim, I'd prefer LFS to get this feature first, after all necessary discussions have taken place. I realise that you've been talking this through w

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Bryan Kadzban wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: + cp -R /lib/udev/devices/* /dev Shouldn't that be "cp -a", to preserve UID/GID/permissions? Good catch, thanks! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the a

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: > Given the fairly minor changes required to get this all working, I'm not > sure it's worth setting a branch up for this stuff. This, of course, > assumes I've not missed something! Nothing major, but: > - # Now, create some required files/directories/devices

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Andrew Benton wrote: So, we used to use the make_extra_nodes function to create these links and now we create them in /lib/dev/udev and get the bootscript to copy them into /dev? Aren't you just repainting the bikeshed? Works for me. Nice bikeshed. But the difference is, this is the colour

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: mkdir -p /lib/udev/devices && ln -sf /proc/self/fd /lib/udev/devices/fd && ln -sf /proc/self/fd/0 /lib/udev/devices/stdin && ln -sf /proc/self/fd/1 /lib/udev/devices/stdout && ln -sf /proc/self/fd/2 /lib/udev/devices/stderr && ln -sf /proc/kcore /lib/udev/devices/core && m

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Thanx Bruce, got it fixed. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Jim Gifford wrote: > Matt, >I have the package that Kay put together at > http://ftp.jg555.com/udev. This has mostly been converted to LFS except > for 2 files. > Just a quick look, but the Makefile has: install: device_dirs device_link rules scripts boot .PHONY: all install device_dirs devi

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matt, I have the package that Kay put together at http://ftp.jg555.com/udev. This has mostly been converted to LFS except for 2 files. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] LFS User # 2577 Registered Linux User # 299986 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ:

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Here's a patch that fixes up the bootscript to work with udev-076 the way I think upstream intend it to be used. In addition to that patch you'll need to run: mkdir -p /lib/udev/devices && ln -sf /proc/self/fd /lib/udev/devices/fd && ln -sf /proc/self/fd/0 /lib/udev/devices/stdin && ln -sf /pr

Re: udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Matthew Burgess wrote: 3. mkdir /lib/udev/devices && ln -s /proc/self/fd /lib/udev/devices/fd && ln -s /proc/self/fd/0 /lib/udev/devices/stdin && ln -s /proc/self/fd/1 /lib/udev/devices/stdout && ln -s /proc/self/fd/2 /lib/udev/devices/stderr && ln -s /proc/kcore /lib/udev/devices

udev-076 setup (was Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Andrew Benton wrote: > Matthew Burgess wrote: > >>> # Populate /dev with all the devices that are already available, >>> # and save it's status so we can report failures. >>> udevstart || failed=1 >> >> >> According to the latest (076) version I don't think the above >> i

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matthew Burgess wrote: # Populate /dev with all the devices that are already available, # and save it's status so we can report failures. udevstart || failed=1 According to the latest (076) version I don't think the above invocation of `udevstart' is required anymore.

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jim Gifford wrote: I'm getting this in cross-lfs as soon as it gets out. Like I said when you mentioned this last week, Jim, I'd prefer LFS to get this feature first, after all necessary discussions have taken place. I realise that you've been talking this through with Kay, but that's all

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Andrew Benton wrote: # Assign udevsend to get hotplug events. udevsend can manage the whole # hotplug handling by taking over the kernel spawned event process echo "/dev/null" > /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug Hmm, I simply changed this to "> /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug"

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matt Darcy wrote: Matt Darcy wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: +1 for wget Andy pussy sorry - that was meant to go to andrew direct - not the list tounge in cheek Matt Riiight... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubs

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: +1 for wget I suggested this a long time ago - one of my first few posts to the list, IIRC. While it is one of the first BLFS packages I build, if we include it, the question becomes, at what point do we stop? -- JH Yeah, at some point you ha

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matt Darcy wrote: Andrew Benton wrote: Ag Hatzim wrote: I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild wget from blfs,for those who would like support for encrypted http,which requires openssl) and maybe a text browser e.g lynx,into the book. +1 for wget And

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Andrew Benton wrote: Ag Hatzim wrote: I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild wget from blfs,for those who would like support for encrypted http,which requires openssl) and maybe a text browser e.g lynx,into the book. +1 for wget Andy pussy -- http://li

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jim Gifford wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: 2) Bring udev in line with upstream recommended practices, including dropping the hotplug package. I'll be creating a branch for this in due course, though I think proper handling of the input subsystem is still dependent on linux-2.6.15. I'm gettin

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Andrew Benton wrote: Ag Hatzim wrote: I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild wget from blfs,for those who would like support for encrypted http,which requires openssl) and maybe a text browser e.g lynx,into the book. +1 for wget I suggested this a long ti

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Ag Hatzim wrote: I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild wget from blfs,for those who would like support for encrypted http,which requires openssl) and maybe a text browser e.g lynx,into the book. +1 for wget Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinf

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Bruce Dubbs wrote: sash wrote: imho, there are no stupid questions. I used to think that. Then I taught a few years in a Community College. :) -- Bruce About 10 years ago I taught a course in C++ at a local community college. The class was meant for C programmers to learn C++ so C w

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The argument was that they weren't required in BLFS, however, > since it's been proven that they *are* required in BLFS (and > boy aren't we lucky that maintainers use semi-recent packages) > you go back to the "not required in LFS" crutch.

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Randy McMurchy wrote: Chris Staub wrote these words on 11/27/05 20:47 CST: Try going to Amazon.com and searching the "Books" section for "google" - there are several books on using google listed. A book on how to use search terms in Google? And people actually would *buy* something l

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: If anyone wants any other features included now's the time to get those requests in. Funny how powerful one little sentence can be. :) And no kidding. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, sash wrote: gullible? or kind, understanding and compassionate? You always put such a nice spin on things, sash. :) Steven -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Ag Hatzim wrote: Matthew Burgess([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:44:29PM +: Hi Matthew. If anyone wants any other features included now's the time to get those requests in. I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild wget from blfs,for those who

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 01:09:34AM -0500: > Ag Hatzim wrote: > >Matthew Burgess([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at > >09:44:29PM +: > >Hi Matthew. > > > > > >>If anyone wants any other features included now's the time to get those > >>requests in. > > Fun

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/28/05 00:08 CST: > These pacakges are still not required on a base LFS. The argument was that they weren't required in BLFS, however, since it's been proven that they *are* required in BLFS (and boy aren't we lucky that maintainers use semi-recent packages

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/27/05, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. > > > > They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are > > many who LFSer

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Ag Hatzim wrote: Matthew Burgess([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:44:29PM +: Hi Matthew. If anyone wants any other features included now's the time to get those requests in. Funny how powerful one little sentence can be. :) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/27/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/27/05 23:50 CST: > > > If I remember, there is only one BLFS pacakges that needs it > > sgml-common. > > You don't remember well. :-) > > At a minimum, and I'm just going on memory so there's probably

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Randy McMurchy wrote: This is just plain not true. BLFS has packages that require the autotools. You may very well be correct, but a strong statement like that would benefit by a few examples. :) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matthew Burgess([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:44:29PM +: Hi Matthew. > > If anyone wants any other features included now's the time to get those > requests in. I would like to propose to put reiserfsprogs,wget (with a note to rebuild wget from blfs,for those who would like supp

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Chris Staub wrote: Tushar Teredesai wrote: On 11/27/05, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tushar Teredesai wrote: On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I dou

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/27/05 23:50 CST: > If I remember, there is only one BLFS pacakges that needs it > sgml-common. You don't remember well. :-) At a minimum, and I'm just going on memory so there's probably more, but the iso-codes and libmikmod packages both require autotool

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/27/05, Ryan Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pretty much the same deal I have done on this end, except I blatantly > ripped off gentoo's setup. > > We should trade notes. I wrote some simple scripts to allow the version selection. Will send my scripts over as soon as I get a chance. -- T

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 11/27/05 23:44 CST: > On 11/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Additionally, there are package in BLFS which require the autotools. > > To be honest, these packages are not even required in BLFS. They can > probably be added to >

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Tushar Teredesai wrote: On 11/27/05, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tushar Teredesai wrote: On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are many wh

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 -0600, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. > > They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are > many who LFSers who need to use these

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Tushar Teredesai wrote: On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are many who LFSers who need to use these pacakges. BTW, just because configure checks f

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Search the archives for a thread in the last few months where this > was discussed. Bruce went on to mention that supporting it in LFS > was prudent as there are so few packages compared to BLFS, and > manpower-wise it seems easier to keep in

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are many who LFSers who need to use these pacakges. BTW, just because configure checks for it does not mean it i

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Justin R. Knierim wrote: sash wrote: Justin R. Knierim wrote: There is? You have got to be kidding me. If a person can't use google, they shouldn't even think about attempting LFS. Seriously... there is and it's not a simple book either. On second thought, I don't doubt that a book a

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Randy McMurchy wrote: sash wrote these words on 11/27/05 20:31 CST: Justin R. Knierim wrote: sash wrote: There is a printed book on how to search using google. I doubt it was written because google is so simple to use for geeky things. There is? You have got to be kid

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote: Justin R. Knierim wrote: There is? You have got to be kidding me. If a person can't use google, they shouldn't even think about attempting LFS. Seriously... there is and it's not a simple book either. On second thought, I don't doubt that a book about google exists. I just

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Chris Staub wrote these words on 11/27/05 20:47 CST: > Try going to Amazon.com and searching the "Books" section for "google" - > there are several books on using google listed. A book on how to use search terms in Google? And people actually would *buy* something like that? I am truly amazed.

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Chris Staub wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: sash wrote these words on 11/27/05 20:31 CST: Justin R. Knierim wrote: sash wrote: There is a printed book on how to search using google. I doubt it was written because google is so simple to use for geeky things. There is? You have got to be kidding

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Randy McMurchy wrote: sash wrote these words on 11/27/05 20:31 CST: Justin R. Knierim wrote: sash wrote: There is a printed book on how to search using google. I doubt it was written because google is so simple to use for geeky things. There is? You have got to be kidding me. If a person can

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote these words on 11/27/05 20:31 CST: > Justin R. Knierim wrote: >>sash wrote: >>>There is a printed book on how to search using google. I doubt it was >>>written because google is so simple to use for geeky things. >> >>There is? You have got to be kidding me. If a person can't use >>g

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote: Justin R. Knierim wrote: sash wrote: There is a printed book on how to search using google. I doubt it was written because google is so simple to use for geeky things. There is? You have got to be kidding me. If a person can't use google, they shouldn't even think about atte

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Justin R. Knierim wrote: sash wrote: There is a printed book on how to search using google. I doubt it was written because google is so simple to use for geeky things. There is? You have got to be kidding me. If a person can't use google, they shouldn't even think about attempting LFS.

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matthew Burgess wrote: 2) Bring udev in line with upstream recommended practices, including dropping the hotplug package. I'll be creating a branch for this in due course, though I think proper handling of the input subsystem is still dependent on linux-2.6.15. I'm getting this in cross-

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote: Yes, they are right there in the book and they are written by geeks who don't appear to have the ability to write for a normal reader who likes to learn. The written instructions often don't make sense until you've already done it. And, the people who write them have done the thin

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote: Yes, they are right there in the book and they are written by geeks who don't appear to have the ability to write for a normal reader who likes to learn. The written instructions often don't make sense until you've already done it. And, the people who write them have done the things

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Chris Staub wrote: sash wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Part of the problem, too, is that many of them *just don't read*. The answers to the questions they ask are right there in the book. Yes, they are right there in the book and they are written by geeks who don't appear to have the ability

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote: > imho, there are no stupid questions. I used to think that. Then I taught a few years in a Community College. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

sash wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Gueven Bay wrote: Hi dear LFS devs, I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev. Part of the problem, too, is that many of them *just don't read*. The answers to the questions they ask are right there in the book. Yes, they are right ther

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Gueven Bay wrote: Hi dear LFS devs, I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev. Part of the problem, too, is that many of them *just don't read*. The answers to the questions they ask are right there in the book. Yes, they are right there in the book

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:54:31 -0500 Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gueven Bay wrote: > > Hi dear LFS devs, > > > > I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev. > > Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write) > > the book but now I want to wr

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Gueven Bay wrote: Hi dear LFS devs, I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev. Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write) the book but now I want to write some words here. Part of the problem, too, is that many of them *just don't read*. The answe

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Richard A Downing wrote: My other thought is to encrypt the book, and only let those who have passed the on-line examination plus an email-viva-voce get the encryption key :-) You get to the exam questions by reading the FAQ right to the end Now that would be cool. :P -- JH -- http://l

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Bryan Kadzban wrote: Matt Darcy wrote: LFS works as it is, it calls out at the start of the book what it will build, I don't see a need to move this to include more tools like a propritary package managment system. If there's one thing MSB's hint *isn't*, it's proprietary. Full sour

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matt Darcy wrote: > LFS works as it is, it calls out at the start of the book what it > will build, I don't see a need to move this to include more tools > like a propritary package managment system. If there's one thing MSB's hint *isn't*, it's proprietary. Full sources for everything are supp

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Gueven Bay wrote: Hi dear LFS devs, I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev. Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write) the book but now I want to write some words here. I can understand that some of you are "not amused" of beginners who want to

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Archaic wrote: I, and many others who have no problem sorting out legitimate errors (which sometimes even leads to FAQ entries or book changes), have steadily gained a disdain for people asking questions with absolutely no prerequisite knowledge of linux. They don't read the links, or they can't

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Hi dear LFS devs, I am one of the - I think - many silent readers of LFS-dev. Normally I only read to gain insight how you develop (or better: write) the book but now I want to write some words here. I can understand that some of you are "not amused" of beginners who want to dive deep (into Linu

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Archaic wrote: On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 09:56:05PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: IOW, I think the level of the book is just right. Please, Bruce, do not take offense at this, but the only posts I've seen from you in lfs-support this year are 2 in August and they were both release announcem

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Dan Nicholson wrote: On 11/24/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So. I had been thinking it would be nice if LFS and BLFS adopted (some of) this approach. Again, I fully recognize that this is new ground in a way and that many people will think, "it is a hint and should stay a hi

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:44 -0700 Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The target > audience of this book has fallen drastically, and my one shot in the > dark request for trunk would be to rip out a lot of the text that is > currently in it and take it back down to circa the 3.0 days when it had >

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 11:25:56PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > My students have a minimum of one OS Course that compares/contrasts > Unix/Linux with that other OS and two Unix/Linux specific courses. That's it! All who ask for support must provide verification of completion of such a course!

Re: Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

Archaic wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 09:56:05PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>IOW, I think the level of the book is just right. > > > Please, Bruce, do not take offense at this, None taken. but the only posts I've seen > from you in lfs-support this year are 2 in August and they were both

Hand holding (Was: Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans)

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 09:56:05PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > IOW, I think the level of the book is just right. Please, Bruce, do not take offense at this, but the only posts I've seen from you in lfs-support this year are 2 in August and they were both release announcements. Also, I never see

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Archaic wrote: > This book teaches the *basics* of creating a base system. It should not, > nor can it effectively, teach proper system admin topics. The target > audience of this book has fallen drastically, and my one shot in the > dark request for trunk would be to rip out a lot of the text tha

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Chris Staub wrote: > <..> > good to know what is installed on your system. Again, this goes back to > "which parts of the hint?" I think we can add some stuff to the book, > like text telling users it's a good idea to check Makefiles for every > command

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:35:50 -0600 Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Furthermore, if you start thinking about packages to pull from LFS, > then you need to start looking at Perl as well. Where do you stop? > True. However Perl used to be needed for GCC tests to run (IIRC). We DO need

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Gerard Beekmans wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote: I think you can compare better with this: It seems all changes are what I would classify as non-crucial. There is one thing I would like to bring up: The placement of Vim. The reason Vim, and its dependencies, are built as early as possible is to pr

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Matthew Burgess wrote: If you feel the explanation given in the final paragraph of http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/chapter06.html#ch-system-introduction is insufficient, feel free to raise a bug/submit a patch :-) I didn't realize the book actually linked to th

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Randy McMurchy wrote: I do feel that LFS should *expose* readers to the *concept* of package management and suggest implementation of some form or another, after considering what is available and figuring out what would be best for him/her. If you feel the explanation given in the final paragr

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 11/25/05 16:23 CST: > Now, if there is another way of achieving what Matthias has done - one > where we don't have to have a separate user for each package - that > would be great. In short, what I'd like to see is a clearer > understanding of the packages b

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/25/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, if there is another way of achieving what Matthias has done - one > where we don't have to have a separate user for each package - that > would be great. In short, what I'd like to see is a clearer > understanding of the packages being

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Randy McMurchy wrote: I'd like to work with you on this one (meant as I'd like to give what you're saying a chance, and not just dismiss the idea). Thank you. What exactly do you mean by "more control". I suppose this is what is confusing me. I am interpreting "more control" as something tha

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

Randy McMurchy wrote: What exactly do you mean by "more control". I suppose this is what is confusing me. I am interpreting "more control" as something that would allow folks to put files where they want and such, which I think would be a bad thing, so I'd like to know what you mean as I don't w

Re: Post LFS-6.1.1 plans

On 11/25/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to say this *one more time* and that will be it. My suggestion > was *not* about package management! It was about using the parts of that > hint that give you 'more control' over the system. If we can achieve the > same things via

  1   2   >