Reply: Re: Default filesystem

Alexander E. Patrakov patrakov at
Sat Feb 3 05:46:00 PST 2007

liliana.perossa at wrote:
> So a, possible bad or wrong, idea but why not moving file system tools from BLFS
> (as states the name it's beyond lfs) to LFS (supposing a different fs instead
> of ext3) ?

The problem is that this would introduce optional packages to LFS (which is 
traditionally supposed to be linear). However, I think that this is already 
addressed by the following text in the book:

> Now that all of the software has been installed, it is time to reboot
> your computer. However, you should be aware of a few things. The system
> you have created in this book is quite minimal, and most likely will not
> have the functionality you would need to be able to continue forward. By
> installing a few extra packages from the BLFS book while still in our
> current chroot environment, you can leave yourself in a much better
> position to continue on once you reboot into your new LFS installation.

So maybe it only remains to add a sentence about filesystem support programs 
below that.

BTW, DIY Linux avoids the problem altogether by installing into a directory 
and not caring about the filesystem at all. Boot loaders are beyond DIY. 
Such approach has some benefits, e.g., it acknowledges that you may want to 
use the newly built system as a chroot only, or boot it via network on a 
different computer. However, saying "You have to make this system bootable 
somehow - see you there" (as DIY effectively does) is inconsistent with the 
goals of the LFS project.

LFS boots the kernel with GRUB, and uses a partition (as opposed to, e.g., 
LVM volume) as a root filesystem. This is concrete, simple and educational, 
and in most (I stress: not all) cases reaches the intended result. Adding 
complex setups would mean that people try them even if such setups are 
beyond their abilities.

Alexander E. Patrakov

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list