Roel Neefs geryon at
Mon May 17 16:34:33 PDT 2004

On Tuesday 18 May 2004 01:29, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> > Requiring a 2.6 kernel would severely restrict the number of hosts
> > LFS can be built on. I'm not sure if either udev or NPTL are also
> > required. Currently, only Suse and Mandrake offer a 2.6, while
> > Redhat/Fedora Core has NPTL (so should be good too). Other hosts
> > require additional work.
> > Besides that, it also breaks with another unwritten rule of LFS:
> > that we shouldn't affect anything on the host to install LFS.
> >
> > Requiring an up-to-date toolchain or glibc is one thing, requiring
> > a user to install a new major release of a kernel with somewhat
> > experimental udev is a pretty steep requirement. Currently, I don't
> > think it's acceptable for LFS-testing.
> [deleted]
> >> The question here is whether the Linux developer community expects
> >> udev to be widely adopted or consider it to be experimental.  Our
> >> approach in this area should be to follow the intentions of the
> >> developers.
> >
> > I don't think LFS should be the frontrunner in this. We don't
> > provide a bleeding-edge distro even though we want to use the
> > latest versions of packages where possible. We're trying to teach a
> > user about the Linux system. Until udev is used by a siginifacnt
> > number of distros or required by the kernel (thus, when static /dev
> > is deprecated), I don't think we should use it in /testing.
> Let me be sure I understand.  You are saying that 6.0 should have
> linux 2.6.x and NPTL, which can be built from, say LFS 5.1, and defer
> udev to a future release.  Is that correct?  If so, that seems like a
> reasonable approach to me.

You need a 2.6 host to do nptl, so you're gonna kick nptl out also? I 
hope not. We're saying that people should at least know how to build a 
kernel to start lfs, but we can't expect them run 2.6.2?

>   -- Bruce

Roel Neefs and

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list