Kernel page, once again

Jeremy Huntwork jeremy at jenacon.net
Wed Jun 16 05:34:39 PDT 2004


On Wednesday 16 June 2004 08:13 am, Richard A Downing FBCS wrote:
> Jeremy Utley wrote:
> > Judging from the reponse we got with the initial development of
> > BE-LFS, there's a LOT of people who are using unstable. 
> > Unfortunately, none of those people are here on LFS-Dev lending
> > their experiences (good or bad).  So we have the precious few of us
> > who have been experimenting with it, trying to bring along the
> > people that for whatever reason, are afraid of doing so.
>
> Just for the record, I'm running BE-LFS as my workstation.  Lotsa
> little niggles that I can't fix yet, but then, I'm not very clever:

I too have been running a BE-LFS system since the end of May.  Although 
I posted a couple of things, most often I've been holding back because 
I don't feel I understand (yet) thoroughly some of the technology 
involved.

I will say now that my system has been as reliable and useful as ever.  
Of course, I am not running a modular kernel, and I have no devices 
that I am hotplugging.  I'm using it as my internal DNS server among a 
few other services.  I *was* impressed by the way all my devices were 
correctly created by udev - for that machine I had previously been 
running LFS 5.1pre2 and I ran into problems because I hadn't correctly 
configured all the devices needed by my scsi cd-rw drive.  If you would 
like more input as far as testing goes, perhaps someone could suggest 
types of actions that would expose possible bugs/flaws? (Forgive me, 
I've done zero of this type of work before...)

-- 
Jeremy Huntwork
http://www.jenacon.net



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list