Perception of LFS

Ken Moffat ken at
Mon Jan 13 12:54:24 PST 2003

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dario Birtic wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:55:49 +0000 (UTC)
> ken at (Ken Moffat) wrote:
> >  If you use RH, all this is taken care of before you get to build a
> > kernel (we're talking aboout "bug reports" on the kernel mailing
> > list). I believe the original post on the l-k thread was from someone
> > building LFS whose kernel had problems, and who assumed it must be a
> > kernel problem - I don't remember seeing any postings from him on
> > lfs-support.
> 	Ok, I must comment on this. The actual problem report was kernel oops,
> let's see, after building all together, and actually using one LFS
> system. Hm, that pretty much rules out "didn't follow the book newbie
> and kernel can't find include directory" problem? So, it was something
> *with* the kernel actually, or with the tools (here we go) used to build
> it. So, Alan said that tools chain is incomplete, inconsistent and here
> we are. Blame the book, our beloved LFS book. The tool chain, cccc. 

 I think part of Alan's problem at the time was that he'd had what he
thought was an excessive number of bug reports which in his opinion were
from LFS users who hadn't built their systems properly. I must admit, I
didn't pick up that the poster who provoked his outburst had already
built working kernels on the same lfs.

 Then again, just because you can build a particular version of the kernel
doesn't mean everything is hunky dory - in the earlier days of gcc-3,
ac had reports of specific code that didn't build correctly, although
many of us were happily using gcc-3. No, I'm not saying this example was
a bug with how people built their toolchains, but it was a toolchain

 Out of the darkness a voice spake unto me, saying "smile, things could be
worse". So I smiled, and lo, things became worse.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list