Purpose of the FAQ

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 1 16:24:45 PDT 2004

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:13:30 +0200
Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> Matthew Burgess said the following on 02-06-2004 00:35:
> > On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:02:40 +0200
> > Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>It seems to me that the minimal host requirements should be
> >documented>in the book itself, since the book should be able to teach
> >a user>without the FAQ.
> > 
> > I thought it had already been decided that accurately determining
> > the minimum host requirements for an LFS build was out of scope (or
> > simply unachievable in any kind of complete state) for the project? 
> > I know
> We already have a page ready for inclusion on 
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/index.php?pagename=BuildingHostKernel
> So you see, it's certainly not unachievable to state minimal versions!

But that doesn't address the autoconf issue either (it doesn't even
state that debian 3.0/woody/whatever is a bad host).  What I'm getting
at is that we can't possibly give people a canonical list of minimum
versions of host packages they'll need.  Aside from the broken autoconf
package, debian 3.0 appears to be a good host.  Are we going to run
tests on all versions of all distros so as we can provide a very long
list of such workarounds for each and every specific breakage in
every conceivable host?  I don't really see any value in that myself,
but you're free to maintain such a section if you have the time and
inclination to do so.

The good host/bad host list is a good start at reaching a compromise
though, and I don't see why a short list of such hosts can't go in the
book.  However, I still believe that a comprehensive list of host
statuses should be made available via the wiki, or some other
community-editable medium so as to keep it up to date and as detailed as

Best regards,


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list