[lfs-dev] LFS 7.3: ISO discussion

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed Mar 13 09:15:46 PDT 2013

cybertao wrote:
> Okay, I'm on the job.


   Since I've been playing with the systemd branch I
> need to compile vanilla 32-bit and 64-bit releases, which I'm currently
> doing using jhalfs.
> I just realised I chose the development branch without much consideration,
> when the stable version my be more appropriate.  If only for the
> convenience of release cycle guidelines.  I focus on making a bootable CD
> and USB image for now using the vanilla-SVN build and replace it with a
> release build later if it's more appropriate.

svn may be more appropriate this time.  We have just seen a bug in the 
kernel for via chipsets and texinfo has a new release that may be more 
forgiving about errors in old .texi files.  I haven't had a chance to 
look at it yet though.

> i686 and x86_64 on the same image, like Arch, is a good idea isn't it?

Actually, I think two images, one for each architecture, would be less 

> It
> becomes complicated to build twice if things such as X are expected to be
> included as standard though, and space becomes tight having to have two
> builds of everything on the same disk.

I'd do two separate isos.  Hopefully from scripts to make updates easy.

  The Arch disk splits the filesystem
> off into SquashFS (or similar) files for i686, x86_64, and
> architecture independent files.  This could also allow for additional
> archives (such as BLFS software) to extend the bootdisk, much like Puppy.

All the BLFS files are on the mirrors, so we can just point to them. 
The book tries to point to the original distribution sites, but the 
md5sums are the same on the mirrors.

> To be honest, I'm not prepared to commit to maintaining non-essential
> software such as X for now.  My ambition is a terminal environment with the
> tools to build LFS, SSH, screen, jhalfs, and build the book.  Any bells and
> whistles can be added by anyone through some sort of SquashFS or UnionFS
> shenanigans (or perhaps BLFS using jhalfs).  If users feel more comfortable
> using a GUI then they should be encouraged to use a virtual machine or SSH
> into a dedicated box.

I agree for now.  After some experience, we may want to reconsider.  Of 
course it's not just Xorg.  twm is a little simplistic without a lot of 
customization so another wm would probably be needed also.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list