Could somebody tell me what is PURE? I always see this word in LFS, but I don't know what this mean.

If a system not pure, what's trouble with it?

How can I estimate a LINUX SYSTEM PURE?

THANKS!!!!!

LFS is Linux From Scratch..

It taking the source code for linux and rolling your own customized distrobution... Pretty cool egh?? I hope to try it one day... though I don't anticipate ever using as a main OS.... just a toy... I enjoy SuSE, Slack, and Debian way too much...

If you're referring to the "pure" vs "taint" you might get in the kernel messages or lsmod, its because of the licence used for the particular element. If something is coded and the author licences with a non-GPL that violates one or more terms of the GPL, it is said to be tainted. That would be the philisophical taint. Unless you're Richard Stallman's biggest and most devoted fan, I'd not worry as much about "pure". Many of the technologies from FreeBSD have made their way to Linux and their licence is not so bad at all (and it upheld a lawsuit, which GPL has yet to do - thank you SCO).

If you're referring to "pure" vs "bloated", then you're really referring to good programming vs bad programming, and that's another story

If you want to cut the bloat with your own distro, choose an advanced install and start with a minimal system and build it as you want to. I've don'e this for years with Debian, Mandrake and FreeBSD (and now Gentoo). Its better than taking the whole and trying to cut the fat. Did that clear anything up? Or are you worse off now?

Pure LFS ( or PLFS ) was the name of the build framework which eventually became LFS 5.0 .

It was denoted pure as the build method has next to no reliance on the host, and effectively the
whole build is a bootstrap, using a self contained toolchain linked against the same
version of the c-libraries you are migrating to, to build enough packages to build the final system
effectively from itself.

Older build methods built ch5 binaries statically linked with host-system libraries, and the build
tended to get tainted by pulling in host headers and libraries.

Hope this avoids some confusion ;-)

[R]

I think the "pure" means "self contained toolchain linked against the same
version of the c-libraries you are migrating to", but how could I validate a system is "pure"?

For example, how could I validate RedHat or Debian is pure or not?

If a system didn't pure, what's it problem?

I'm waitting the answer, Thanks!

Linux is pure when the PC is using Linux kernel and nothing else. Purity in FOSS is stupid. If Redhat isn't pure, is Suse, Slackware, or Debian? Remove Linux kernel from Debian and put in GNU Hurd, it's no longer Linux. Linux isn't an OS, it's part of one (best one).

I am more concerned as to why this measure of purity seems to be important to you (and others who are concerned about this measure as well).

Well I imagine that people would like to know why a package would not compile and install on their system. All distros seem to put things in different places and put in their own optimazations. Not that I think it is bad to be different, but still it does not make live any easier if you are a newbie like me .

I can certainly understand a concern like yours. That's one of the reasons why I suggest that a person who is new try Mandrake or Debian, as the package managers are very good and you usually end up with a system that still works when you add a piece of software - and the # of packages in the repositories is huge. Of course, you could also take the path I did, and fall for Gentoo (for the same reasons).

As far as purity is concerned, I have always gone by the "PURE GPL" idea - and quickly disregarded it for functionality. I had a friend who breathed GPL, as if it were his "god", so to speak. We had a difference of opinion, which was easy with him, unfortunately. Is it right to use software with a different licence, like the BSD one? I don't know. I'm okay with it.

i think that you'll find most distributions store files in the same directories. The structure is the same, for the most part. A few, like Red Hat and Slackware put files in strange places sometimes, which can make for confusion, but for the most part, one can find things in similar places. The best way to understand what's the "BEST" (as opposed to pure) is to read about what really makes a Unix-like operating system what it is. Specifically regarding Linux, one could check out a source, like the linux documentation project or the RUTE manual. And, of course, come back here and ask questions (or seek the answers from the Wiki.

Maybe a better example would be my reasons why I moved away from a couple of the distributions,.

1) Mandrake does not have the Apache web server but the Mandrake Extranet Server (I know it's just a re-branded apche web server) So I just downloaded, compiled and installed Apache from apache.org. But the last drop for me was when I tried to update Perl from CPAN......

2) Suse copyrichted yast and even their config files, now that really put me off (have not seen what they are like since Novell got involved, but I have been hearing encouraging stories)

3) The prices the major vendors ask for their "advanced" distro's are just a joke and gets away from my idea of "free" software. I have therefor no real desire to learn their particular quircks...

All distro's have some problems, but what attracts me to LFS, Debian, Free/NetBSD and others is the fact that they do not have to have the shareholders intrest in mind in the decision making. Secondly the large (and small) vendors make huge targets to companies like SCO...

I am currently using Fedora (desktop) and FreeBSD (server) , but I am thinking of trying my hand at gentoo and/or slackware before I give LFS a go. But then again diving in head first can also be fun....

I'll vouch for Gentoo. One thing it has over LFS is compiler optimizations (which you can do with LFS, but only after reading the GCC guide), which may speed things up. But. with LFS, you learn about where toolchains go and how to compile. Gentoo compiles, but emerge does all the work, like FreeBSD's port stsem does, with the comvenience of urpmi or apt-get.

An interesting thread, I thought I'd chip in with my reasons for choosing LFS....

I started with Slackware which seemed ok for someone like me (fairly experienced with computers and various OSes, but new to Linux) but I was frustrated by 2 elements...[list=1][*]It uses an "odd" init system. I believe this is called the "BSD" system and have yet to get my head around it fully. It isn't about what is "best", but what works. Many packages assume the RedHat style and install appropriately. I wasn't sure how to migrate.[*]Installing from a Distro means some stuff gets installed automatically, and not neccessarily in the standard location. For example, I had Apache 1.3 installed and tried to get Apache 2 working Aggh! When I started playing will SAMBA, well.... Suffice it to say that LFS was worth a serious look![/list=1]I'm less concerned by licenses etc. but for me "pure" means OS and the ability to install applications only. No "extras" the distro author thinks I should have.

Paul

there's an included slackware package called "sysvinit" which gives you compatibility...

i'll quote from the /etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit file:

here's a neat page which tries to de-mistify slackware's "odd" init system:

http://old.slackfiles.net/documentat...cles/init.html

Quote:

Installing from a Distro means some stuff gets installed automatically

this is true on a lot of distros, but my experience with slackware hasn't been like this... in fact, it's been the exact opposite of this... and i'm sure other slackers can attest to this too...

here's another distro that tries to "keep it simple", though the base install isn't as minimal as slackware's:

http://www.crux.nu/

Thanks for that - although advice a tad late for me! (I have my LFS system up now...)

I have to be honest, for me, one of the biggest problems in "taking up" Linux, was deciding on a Distro to use. Having done an LFS, I'm proud of it, although I am still having some odd problems which will no doubt be ironed out eventually.

I hear what you say about both SysV and default packages, but it really isn't that obvious when you come to do your install. Most people, I suspect, will do one of three things when installing any distro for the first time....[list=1][*]Leave the defaults. Unfortunately, you end up with stuff you perhaps don't want and other stuff you do want is missing.[*]Install everything.[*]Try to cut out stuff you think you won't need (like I did) and then find that you did need it after all and have no idea how to add it later![/list=1] In my case, I missed out something needed to compile stuff from scratch so was unable to add things I wanted. The great thing about LFS is that you know not only what you are installing, but why. I now have a system where I know exactly what's on it and why that is there. I can happily add Apache2 or SAMBA3 without finding "old" stuff getting in the way which was "helpfully" installed by the distro.

I agree that Slackware isn't as bad for this as most (which is why I chose it) but you are still faced with a huge number of choices which you aren't neccessarily in a position to make. (The old chicken and the egg situation).

Still, at least a HAVE that choice, which is more than I would have done if I had remained in Mr. Gates' camp!

Paul

The problem with CRUX is that it uses the stupid DEVFS.