petrele.chen wrote:
[...]
> And about LFS, I doesn't agree with you in some place. First, LFS is
> a way to build your own OS _or_ learn the construction of a Linux OS,
> and what you end up it with is not important at all. So, where the
> question came from doesn't matter at all. the only thin
Ryan Isaacs wrote:
> I have a fresh LFS 6.4 installation, all I've done is add 1 user. Is
> there a preferred way to back it up (and restore)?
>
> Would it be sufficient to just use the liveCD, mount my paritition,
> and 'cp -ar', or do I need to do something more arcane like 'dd'?
It depends upo
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Jack Stone wrote:
>> Sorry I should have made that clear. Yes the device does have an entry
>> in fstab. So far it is always given the same name (sde), but I don't
>> know if I can rely on that.
>
> You cannot. It depends on the order in which the USB gets
> enumerated,
Jack Stone wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> The 'mount -a' command will only mount those filesystems
>> identified in /etc/fstab. And typically you would not put
>> a USB device in /etc/fstab. Have you identified the USB
>> drive in that file? If so, how do you ensure that the drive
>> always has
Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
> That's odd. I got different files, and gunzip didn't complain
> that either was corrupt. That's confusing.
Or so I thought. Now, I'm not so sure.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Government
Chris Staub wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Ok, gunzip thinks there is no error, but when I pulled that
>> file from
>>
>> ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/6.4/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz
>>
>> it's different from the wget-list file's URL target
>>
>> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/inetutils/inetutil
DJ Lucas wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, you'd need to do the same with cp, ln, mkdir, mknod, mv,
> rename, rm, etc. Suddenly, the approach by installwatch, CheckInstall,
> and other like approaches, makes quite a bit more sense.
I don't recall saying that those approaches didn't make sense.
I
Chris Staub wrote:
[...]
> Also, as far as I know, there's really nothing special about
> "install"...it's just another Makefile target, though obviously one of
> the commonly-used ones.
As a target, yes, however there is an "install" program, and
that's what I was mentioning.
Mike
--
p="p=%
