[Gllug] sparc 227terabyte disk size oddness

[Nix]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Paul Nasrat mused:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 07:23:23AM +0100, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>> At 22:02 30/07/2003, you wrote:
>> >I boggle. That is *really* not supposed to happen.
>> >
>> >Possibly a move from non-LFS to LFS was going on, and you got bitten by
>> >having some parts of the system built LFS (with 64-bit file pointers and
>> >sizes) and some parts built non-LFS (with file pointers and sizes only
>> >32-bit).
>> 
>> Re-read the original post and you'll find he's running debian.
> 
> I would imagine that LFS is distro independant relying on kernel/glibc
> stuff:

Er, yes. I'd forgotten that LFS was overloaded by people who wanted
build-yer-own boxes to have their own acronym.

(As someone whose boxes are built from scratch without using the LFS web
site, are my machines `LFSFS'?)

> At least I assume this is what Nix was talking about, as ever posts

I think that was it. My memory across multiple days is fuzzy because I'm
going cold-turkey on caffeine to reduce dependency symptoms (and
increase the hit :) )

> before coffee may contain errors :)

The cure is to drink more coffee.

coffee.

COFFEE.

                         * * * C O F F E E * * *

... can I stay away, there is a Force dragging me towards the kettle ...

-- 
`We cannot get a new line down the pipe due to a blockage and we cannot
 dig up the road to clear the blockage because it is covered with the
 wrong type of tarmac.' --- British Telecom, via Mark Lowes

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug