I read the LFS manual through about three times, then tried it on an old laptop. It was interesting and fun, and I mostly got it finished, but it's not something I'd go for to use everyday. It was definitely a learning experience. If I had the time I might try it again on an old computer.

I don't understand (fully) the "question" (or:
MCP, A+, JNCIA, CCNA, CNA, BSC, SSC(2)
EOTM(Wendy's), PCMCiA, PCi, Vesa, TheDraw
MSDoS 3.0+, Novell 3.2, OS/2 Warp, PhD, TiL
PCMCiA, RoFL, TWeRP) but it depends on what part your referring?
________________
There is reading (also hinted.) Then centered in my browser at lest with 1366x768 resolution this version of my signature (x.x) kinda looks like a flying saucer. I believe all links in the world to be only examples as truth is again and again rewrote... Then there's ((hinted from) binary, seems fitting from a computer) hello (and just as the) world (encrypted...) Plus,

LFS is a fun way to learn not just how a Linux distribution works but also how they are put together, more or less.

Granted, my biggest beef with LFS is that the authors seem bent on not introducing one critical feature that'd make an LFS system a lot more practical, maintenence-wise: Package management.

They spend a page on it basically explaining why they don't do it, then link you to a file that explains what FORMS of package management there are, but nary a word on how to IMPLEMENT a package manager. I'd love to see something describing in detail a way to set up a local package manager for an LFS build so that you can track what's installed more properly. You'd still be responsible for grabbing and building new software yourself, but there's still hugs advantages to using a package manager and NOT the Makefile to actually install it.

That's probably the biggest reason why LFS gets the "Well, I built it, I'll use it for a few days then wipe it off my disk" treatment. Great for learning, not so great for using, since you can't really upgrade or remove packages without a lot of work. Though people can and have managed to make LFS their desktop.

Heck, the LFS guide even outright says to upgrade just about anything in the core it's better to rebuild the whole system. This is NOT how a normal Linux distribution handles a core package update. If glibc or the kernel need upgrading, it just upgrades that part. It doesn't reinstall your entire core package setup.

Long rant short: LFS is great for learning how to build and maintain a Linux system at the low levels, but without a package manager it's just not that usable for anything beyond that.

1 members found this post helpful.

They also outright say that LFS is meant to be a learning tool, and not an everyday system, and that package management would take away from that.

"Dealing with package management takes the focus away from the goals of these books—teaching how a Linux system is built."

As mentioned, LFS is meant for learning how a Linux Distro is put together from scratch. Nothing else.

If you want a low-level system that is usable, you will have to use Arch or Gentoo. OR, build your own linux and choose a package manager of your own, such as: https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm

1 members found this post helpful.