LiveCD or No LiveCD?
Julio Meca Hansen
lydianknight at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 10:37:38 PST 2008
I'm not sure if my opinion would count as I'm not a formal developer of LFS,
more of an user trying to track some new packages and trying to inform if
there's any anomaly in some of them, but, well... here goes my two cents:
LiveCD or not LiveCD? LiveCD without any need of thinking about it...
Why? first of all, if we talk about using ubuntu (as I've read) forces you
to use apt-get to install the packages needed for compilation of LFS (and
apt-get is NOT an intuitive step for every users even if they rely on
Synaptic or any other form of package management tool). The ideal startup
for LFS compilation is... start compiling with the book steps, not having to
take an extra step to ensure your host have the required packages to start
the process. the LFS LiveCD has all the packages you need, a version of the
book, a browser, a console... that's just everything you could need to start
Second, the LiveCD is compiled 'the LFS way', that's... every package has
its headers placed in the /usr/include hierarchy, so you don't have to
search for -dev/-devel packages, but...
What I would suggest is (and it's my opinion but it doesn't have to be the
absolute path to follow):
Keep the LiveCD with the bare minimum packages needed to run, I think a
better configuration would be something like:
- base system (with the latest kernel and toolchain included (ideally))
- packages (or not, as there's the option of -nosrc iso image)
- X11 + xterm
and with the graphical desktop... hmm... do we really need XFCE? it's a
great environment but... what about twm with just two windows started at
startup (an xterm session and seamonkey/firefox)?
it should keep the package list for building the LiveCD at a relative
minimum, and it would be faster to load than having to rely on any other
form of graphics interface, but... that's my opinion, of course...
What do you think?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Huntwork" <jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org>
To: "Development of LFS LiveCD" <livecd at linuxfromscratch.org>
Cc: "LFS Developers Mailinglist" <lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>;
<lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>; "BLFS Development List"
<blfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>; <lfs-chat at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: LiveCD or No LiveCD?
> Hello Everyone,
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3) It leads to less testing from other hosts
> 4) A seeming lack of community interest in contributing. Especially,
> essential testing (and reports on the results of tests!) on varied
> hardware does not seem to be taking place
> As you may guess, I have mixed feelings about this. But after reflecting
> on it a bit, my hesitancy to agree comes mostly from personal attachment
> to the CD and perhaps not what is best for LFS.
> At this point I need community input. I realize that many of you may use
> and appreciate the CD, just as I do. But realistically, this project
> will die of its own if it does not get some help. And if that happens,
> then LFS would be better off removing the dead weight.
> I have some energy and some ideas to put back into the project, but only
> if I get some help with development and testing. I need to know two
> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> degrading the quality of LFS)
> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive?
> If the answer to both questions is not a solid yes, I'm afraid that
> we'll have no choice but to kill the project.
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
More information about the lfs-dev