CVS ready to use?

Gerard Beekmans gerard at
Fri May 30 11:25:54 PDT 2003

On May 30, 2003 11:49 am, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> I know the text of the book is still not 100%, but about 2 weeks ago it was
> said that VS would be 'ecent enough to build a box from' in about a week.
> are we there yet? I've got about a half-dozen boxes that need to be built
> for various uses/clients and would prefer to use CVS over the 4.1 release.
> opinions on such? caveats? thanks

Opinions may be divided on this. I personally think it's good enough to go. 
I've put LFS-CVS on one of my main systems and so far things are working out 
just fine. I've finished LFS-CVS install itself and added some base X stuff 
like XFree86 itself, KDE, GTK-1, GTK-2 and some other things.

The only thing I need to remind myself is to use /opt/gcc-2.95.3/bin/gcc as 
the compiler when compiling third-party kernel modules. For instance I 
compiled the alsa driver by accident with gcc-3.2.3. The result is that the 
driver loads fine, but when I try to unload Linux locks up. And alsa utils 
seg fault when I try to play sound files. Recompiling the driver with 2.95.3 
fixed all that. Similar problems with other kernel modules.

The things that need to be done in the lfs-book right now are "pretty-ing' 
things up. Added all the Pure-LFS explanations from the pure-lfs.txt hint and 
cleaning the instructions up a bit. But, I haven't found anything that 
results in a blatant and obvious bug in the end-product, other than the "rm 
/bin/awk" command when installating gawk in chapter 6, but that one is known 
already so can be ignored.

The real test is you trying it out and letting us know. We're still testing 
and the more people try it out, the more different configurations will be 
used that may expose problems not found yet.

In an hour or so I'm going to install LFS-CVS on the 
server (the one that's going to be put into a colocation facility very soon 
now, more on that in other email). Maybe that's an indication how "good 
enough" I deem LFS-CVS myself. I figure the LFS server will be a good field 
test to see how things hold up (stability and "pureness" wise).

Gerard Beekmans

/* Linux Consultant --- OSDN / DevChannel *
 * Technical Writer --- CheapBytes        */

/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */

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