On Tue, Apr 24, at 07:27 Matthew Burgess wrote:
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch that provides a better end product.
In my haste in
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST:
Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at all
in its current form, I'd like to drop it.
Thoughts, comments?
On the computer
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST:
Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic
purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at
all in its current form, I'd like
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/24/07 01:57 CST:
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
What would it report without the patch?
The pentium3 would become unknown. The patch sets uname -p.
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch that provides a better end product.
In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response, please:
s/Seems dumb to/I would prefer that we didn't/
--
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi,
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the
same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses
another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures
still.
Given that all 3 books
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
a patch that provides a better end product.
In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response,
Robert Connolly wrote:
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this:
Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686
pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux
What would it report without the patch?
The
Greg Schafer wrote:
Robert Connolly wrote:
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote:
On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this:
Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686
pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux
What would it report without the
On Friday April 20 2007 17:55, Matthew Burgess wrote:
Hi,
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use
the same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS
uses another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more
architectures still.
10 matches
Mail list logo