Minimal Requirements of Distribution

malstram at malstram at
Thu Mar 28 09:02:39 PST 2002

I instaloled LFS 3.2 with RedHat 7.2 and had no problems.  I installed a minimal system (about 600 megs) with a total space on the partition of about 1 gig and then created a second partition of 2 gigs for my /mnt/lfs.  Even the size of the partition i chose for redhat was a bit large as I added networking , irc and telnet / ftp so getting extra packages / getting online could still be done.  I also was unsure about the sizes, and how the partitions would be treated after I set up the LFS system because it was my first time.  I'm sure you could easily set up a very minimal RH7.2 install with about 300-400 megs plus maybe 200 for JUST IN CASE would give you a 500-600 meg partition.

Everything went great. :)

Well I have a question about not so much lfs but linux packages in general.  I was considering installing a bare minimum distribution then adding packages as I go.  Obviously what I would like to install is the bare minimum useful packages which don't need an operational linux box to be compiled.  ie things like, the kernel, glibc, gcc.  

Basically my idea is to install lets say Slackware (which seems to be one of the cleaner distros as far as using standard directories) and installing, the kernel, binutils, fileutils, findutils, gcc, glibc, devpts. bash, bzip,gzip,tar.  Then after that installing everything else from source code.

Problem is while slackware is clean as far as directories it uses, etc, it doesnt give much managability over packages installed.   It actually considers many packages that I don't even have on my lfs as "REQUIRED".  How can it be "REQUIRED" by linux if my linux lfs system doesn't need it? heheheh...  Anyways, RH7.2 does allow a lot of package selection but they create a lot of "their own" directories n stuff and wading through the muck of the install is a pain in the ass.

Debian I figure is prolly a good choice although I tried the install program they have (what was it ??? dpkg?, i think now it's called Diety or something...) offered...ahem...too much choice.  Then again that was when i first started learning about linux so it's installation program sorta scared me away. :)

Well any help would be appreciated.  :) I think I'll try Debian and see how that works out.  Although I think i heard that they weren't going to be around much longer or soemthing....:(

> Date: 2002/03/28 Thu AM 11:31:21 EST
> To: lfs-support at
> Subject: Minimal Requirements of Distribution
> Hello,
> I have about three gigs of space on my linux box that I wish to install my 
> lfs system on.  My host distribution was initially Redhat 7.2 but the 7.2 
> standard install is 1.5 gigabytes!  I was wondering what the best 
> distribution was to use as a host for an lfs system.  By best I mean I want 
> a distribution that just contains all the programs or tools necessary to 
> compile the lfs system, no more no less.  Can anyone suggest a distribution 
> that is optimal for this.  Slackware, Debian, SuSe?  Any help here would be 
> appreciated.
> Thank you,
> John
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
> and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-support mailing list