Default filesystem

TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Sat Feb 3 09:28:16 PST 2007


Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> liliana.perossa at fastwebnet.it 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:
> 
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.2/chapter09/reboot.html
<snip>
> 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.<snip>

 Adding
> complex setups would mean that people try them even if such setups are 
> beyond their abilities.
> 

Having read this and thought about it some more, I guess I'd suggest
changing the book to build into a directory, then add some chapters on
moving the built system to a bootable partition - and then making it
bootable.

This way we can have a simple scheme for the Newbies and Volume
Management or other exotica for the Gurus.  This is what I actually do
these days.  Your last point is well made, however.

I can't see much advantage to actually building the LFS core on an
exotic filesystem, or maybe I'm missing something - perhaps it's much
faster, for instance.

On the whole, perhaps LFS has it right at the moment, anyone with the
knowledge and desire can easily use the basic instructions - and even
jhalfs - to do whatever they want, but the learners have a safe and
predictable journey.

R.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list