Purpose of the FAQ
archaic at indy.rr.com
Tue Jun 1 22:16:15 PDT 2004
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:18:08PM -0400, Jon wrote:
> 3) It was a question about making it the preferred method of installing LFS,
> not the only option.
Since you chose not to quote the relevant text, I'll requote it:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:30:31PM -0400, Jon wrote:
> Why not reword the section to have people use the bootcds.
Sounds like an ultimatum being suggested to me. HEAD (or something close
to it) is being built by RH-6.0. Many times in the last several years we
have had to concern ourselves with host package versions. Forward
progress dictates we will always have to. This is a much smaller problem
than the migration to glibc 2.3, yet I don't recall people going off the
deep end about that (not suggesting you personally, but some). I don't
understand why people get so extreme when it happens.
So, somewhere in the book (near the beginning) we should mention that
the 2.6 kernel must be temporarily built on the host. The actual
instructions much like chapter 8 should occur elsewhere prior to chapter
5 (because it doesn't build on the lfs partition). Then have a static
link pointing to known necessary minimum tools like gcc-3.
And for those who hate the idea of LFS suggesting people modify their
hosts, it's been common advice ever since I've been around. I can recall
someone telling me I needed this or that version (automake, IIRC). Since
I then, like most past and present, came from an RPM or apt-get
background, it was nothing to upgrade to the required version.
A ``decay in the social contract'' is detectable; there is a growing
feeling, particularly among middle-income taxpayers, that they are not
getting back, from society and government, their money's worth for taxes
paid. The tendency is for taxpayers to try to take more control of their
- IRS Strategic Plan, (May 1984)
More information about the lfs-dev