What is built by LFS

Alexander E. Patrakov see at the.sig
Fri May 7 03:11:29 PDT 2004

Richard A Downing FBCS wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2) LFS has always been a lot about Education, as well as stable build. I 
> think it's very difficult to teach people how to build systems without 
> going beyond the 'minimal platform' to the 'minimal useful platform'.

One more disease is that we teach how to build software from sources, 
how to track dependencies (we are good at that!), but we don't teach to 
configure software properly. This is a far more difficult task. But 
without this, LFS is not a good educational tool. Oh, is it an 
educational tool at all? The last Gerard's comment to


(marked as WONTFIX at the time of this writing) makes me think 
otherwise, namely, that LFS is about "how they the distributors build 
everything", not about "how I myself can make a Linux system that suits me".


> I guess I'm asking for revision of the LFS/BLFS split.  To my mind, 
> since 95% will be building on a PC, from a modern Linux distro, LFS-base 
> should 'teach' how to build that.  I'd take all of Post-LFS from BLFS 
> into the LFS book myself, but slightly expand the wording to be a 
> tutorial on establishing a working base - it's very good now.


The existence of the following repeatedly asked questions:

1) about inputrc (fixed together with i18n)
2) about colors in xterm (looks like nobody except me knows what's 
different from the distros)
3) about the "less" program printing <AD> (fixed by adding i18n)
4) about module autoloading (sometimes with incorrect answer)
5) "how do I print with CUPS" (partially fixed by me by including 
Gimp-Print into the book; OMNI is still misconfigured)

is very bad.

Alexander E. Patrakov
To get my address: echo '0!42!+/6 at 5-3.535.25' | tr [!-:] [a-z] | tr n .

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list