Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Mon May 17 19:26:00 PDT 2004

Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> That's exactly true. If we can't build LFS-6.0 from LFS-5.1 (or LFS-5.0 
> for that matter), then it shouldn't be LFS-6.0.

You _can_ build LFS-6.0 from LFS-5.1 or LFS-5.0. You just have to 
upgrade your kernel, which people (our target audience) already do. If 
they built LFS-5.0, are you expecting that they have never upgraded 
their kernel beyond the 2.4.22 that was in that book?

Upgrading an existing host to run the 2.6 kernel is not at all 
difficult, unless people (especially LFS users) are using a 
configuration that absolutely _requires_ module support (like a strange 
initrd or something). If they are using a configuration like that, they 
are going to run into problems booting their new LFS system anyway, 
unless they know how to deal with those issues. If they know how to deal 
with those issues, they can upgrade their host to a (non-modular) 2.6 

In fact, upgrading their system to a 2.6 kernel before they start their 
LFS build is actually a very good thing, IMHO, because they will find 
out very early on whether their system has any trouble with the 2.6 
kernel series. If it does, they did not waste their time building a 
complete system only to find out they can't use it.

Finally, the availability of one or two (if not more) LFS-6.0 capable 
boot CDs makes this even easier to deal with; if they don't want to 
modify their host, they don't have to.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list