On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:00:52PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
>
> More clear now?
Ah, yes. I had said a hybrid of BLFS and also suggested putting those
entities in one file. I agree that putting them in individual package
pages would be a bad thing.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and secu
El Martes, 21 de Junio de 2005 22:49, Archaic escribió:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:21:27PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> > To place entities on the files headers isn't a good idea for LFS, IMHO.
>
> Please explain what is not good about having all package-specific
> entities in one place.
To plac
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:21:27PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
>
> To place entities on the files headers isn't a good idea for LFS, IMHO.
Please explain what is not good about having all package-specific
entities in one place.
> I think that Jim is proposing that new packages.ent to can do packa
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Jim Gifford wrote:
The one thing I'm not sure on is if the SBU's will be the same on the
different architectures, as far as the build size goes, it should be the
same except for one package which is gcc, since we have a 32bit ABI
build, 32/64 ABI build
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Jim Gifford wrote:
>
> The one thing I'm not sure on is if the SBU's will be the same on the
> different architectures, as far as the build size goes, it should be the
> same except for one package which is gcc, since we have a 32bit ABI
> build, 32/64 ABI build, and 32/n32/64
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Martes, 21 de Junio de 2005 21:42, Jim Gifford escribió:
SBU's are going to be invalid up to chapter 9, chapter 9 will be the
first chapter that we could provide SBU information.
I agree.
That meant that SBUs could be removed in other chapters, true?
My pl
El Martes, 21 de Junio de 2005 21:42, Jim Gifford escribió:
> SBU's are going to be invalid up to chapter 9, chapter 9 will be the
> first chapter that we could provide SBU information.
I agree.
That meant that SBUs could be removed in other chapters, true?
> My plan for packages.ent was somethi
SBU's are going to be invalid up to chapter 9, chapter 9 will be the
first chapter that we could provide SBU information.
My plan for packages.ent was something simliar to what archaic was
suggesting
http://url/to/package/official/download";
The one thing I'm not sure on is if the SBU's
El Martes, 21 de Junio de 2005 01:56, Archaic escribió:
>
> A hybrid of something like BLFS does might be nice. However, I don't
> like the idea of having package-specific entities spread across multiple
> files. Here's an idea for a packages.ent (or even left in general.ent)
> file:
To place ent
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 04:09:48PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
>
<..>
A hybrid of something like BLFS does might be nice. However, I don't
like the idea of having package-specific entities spread across multiple
files. Here's an idea for a packages.ent (or even left in general.ent)
file:
Hey all,
I was just thinking about making use of some more entities in the
cross-lfs book.
1 - File Sizes for the Downloads and Patches, for packages it would
be in general.ent(I would like to move the packages to packages.ent,
also if everyone agree's, and leave general.ent to just the
11 matches
Mail list logo
