Linux From Scratch This Forum is for the discussion of LFS.
LFS is a project that provides you with the steps necessary to build your own custom Linux system. |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
02-10-2002, 09:24 PM
|
#1
|
LFS Maintainer
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Canmore, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: Linux From Scratch
Posts: 372
Rep:
|
LFS-3.2-RC1 released
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 02:32 AM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 1,316
Rep:
|
Is there a ChangeLog for the LFS book? Just quickly scanning through the book I just saw several version updates of several packages. I thought I read somewhere on the mailing list that gawk was going to be used in 3.2 but I still see mawk in the book.
I'm kinda in the middle of doing an LFS from book 3.1 which I really don't want to redo. I'm compiling it for a 486 with only 16MB of ram. It took about 24 hours to compile glibc, and the machine was swapping like crazy. I'd want to redo maybe several packages if there are major updates in the book. I already used kernel 2.4.17 instead of 2.4.16 which was in the 3.1 book.
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 07:25 AM
|
#3
|
Member
Registered: May 2001
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Distribution: RedHat ES
Posts: 120
Rep:
|
Bollocks!
I'm right in the middle of Chapter 6 of LFS 3.1
Is it worth trying to transition to 3.2 now, start over or upgrade after the whole system is up?
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 10:30 AM
|
#4
|
LFS Maintainer
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Canmore, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: Linux From Scratch
Posts: 372
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mik
Is there a ChangeLog for the LFS book? Just quickly scanning through the book I just saw several version updates of several packages. I thought I read somewhere on the mailing list that gawk was going to be used in 3.2 but I still see mawk in the book.
I'm kinda in the middle of doing an LFS from book 3.1 which I really don't want to redo. I'm compiling it for a 486 with only 16MB of ram. It took about 24 hours to compile glibc, and the machine was swapping like crazy. I'd want to redo maybe several packages if there are major updates in the book. I already used kernel 2.4.17 instead of 2.4.16 which was in the 3.1 book.
|
There is a Changelog in Chapter 1. The first top of the changelog entries are the package updates and below it are all the other changes made in the book. Just keep reading until you reach the start of the "LFS-3.1" Changelog entries.
Regarding gawk: it'll go in right after the release of 3.2 . There wasn't enough time on my end to properly test gawk.
Is it worth transitioning to LFS-3.2 from LFS-3.1? I'd say yes it is. Again, it's up to you. Read the Changelog to see what exactly changed and make those chagnes if you want to.
Keep in mind this was just the 3.2-RC1 release. There's going to be an RC2 release before the final 3.2 which may have some more changes if there are glaring bugs found.
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 11:07 AM
|
#5
|
Member
Registered: May 2001
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Distribution: RedHat ES
Posts: 120
Rep:
|
Oh, I certainly want to transition from 3.1 to 3.2 -- but the question is when.
Now (midway through Ch 6 of 3.1), after, or start from the beginning?
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 06:48 PM
|
#6
|
LFS Maintainer
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Canmore, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: Linux From Scratch
Posts: 372
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally posted by notsoevil
Oh, I certainly want to transition from 3.1 to 3.2 -- but the question is when.
Now (midway through Ch 6 of 3.1), after, or start from the beginning?
|
Start from chapter 6 with 3.2 There weren't any changes to chapter 5 so you can skip it.
Ehm, you're part way through chapter 6 so some programs are already linked against the old Glibc (2.2.4) so perhaps it's just best to start from chapter 5.
It's not a problem to run programs linked against glibc-2.2.4 with glibc-2.2.5 but you may want to redo it to get that "truly clean feeling".
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 07:07 PM
|
#7
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,700
Rep:
|
I like the jump up to Glibc2.2.5 and making the bootscripts (which everyone pretty much uses), part of the regular install instead of a huge section on their own. Offhand, are there any plans to jump ahead a couple of gcc's, or is 2.95 really still the most stable compiler? Oh, and are there any plans for an ext3 option, or is the project pretty married to Reiser?
Cheers,
Finegan
Last edited by finegan; 02-11-2002 at 07:09 PM.
|
|
|
02-11-2002, 08:13 PM
|
#8
|
LFS Maintainer
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Canmore, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: Linux From Scratch
Posts: 372
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally posted by finegan
I like the jump up to Glibc2.2.5 and making the bootscripts (which everyone pretty much uses), part of the regular install instead of a huge section on their own. Offhand, are there any plans to jump ahead a couple of gcc's, or is 2.95 really still the most stable compiler? Oh, and are there any plans for an ext3 option, or is the project pretty married to Reiser?
Cheers,
Finegan
|
1) jump to gcc-3.0.3 will be made (or whatever the most recent gcc is when we change it). We may be making the change after the release of LFS-3.3
2) we're not married to any file system. Reiser will be removed from the book and moved to a hint, as well as adding an ext3 hint (if anybody writes one) and we're going to stick with ext2 as default (more widely supported on every Linux system, whereas journaling isn't always available).
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|