Lessons to be learnt from recent events

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Wed Jan 29 17:21:58 PST 2003


Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On January 29, 2003 05:32 pm, Ronald Hummelink wrote:
>> --bind requires kernel 2.4 and somewhat recent util-linux, I am not sure
>> wether LFS should exclude kernel 2.2 systems yet ;)
>
> We do pretty much exclude Glibc-2.0.x and Glibc-2.1.x systems
(glibc-2.0.x
> more so than glibc-2.1.x). Any more modern Linux system comes with a 2.4
> kernel. But we can always include a note "If you can't use --bind use the
> following symlink instead".
>
> But the problem is that a symlink doesn't work inside chroot, whereas a
> mount --bind does.

I can't think of an issue with using a symlink to point /static
( or /stage1 :-) ) to ${LFS}/static during chapter 5 build (would have to
test)... the bind mount doesn't have to exist across the chroot ( its in
${LFS}/static after all )

After ch5 it wont matter :-) we'll have the functionality
(where it WILL be needed... unless we use Richard Lightmans
 "Symlink Forest" method

http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2003/01/0618.html
)

Excuse my prediliction, I tend to use mount --bind as the hammer for every
FS nail :-)

Regards
Ryan Oliver
Peter Harding And Associates Pty. Ltd.
Eml: ryan.oliver at pha.com.au
Ph:  +613 9641 2222
Fax: +613 9641 2200
Web: http://www.pha.com.au

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



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list