LFS + latest packages + kernel 2.6.x

Richard A Downing FBCS richard at 109bean.org.uk
Sat May 8 08:32:56 PDT 2004


Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004, James Buchanan wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have done a search in the archives for LFS + kernel 2.6.x, but it
>>points to RedHat's kernel headers.  Is this strictly necessary?  I
>>don't want to use RedHat's because they make modifications to the
>>stock kernels, and I would like a stock kernel.
> 
> 
> IIRC, search for PLD headers? I believe some folks have settled on
> those. The name may not be right, but you should be able to find the
> right headers in the archives that seem to be agreed upon by the
> lfs-hackers folks.
> 
> 
>><snip>
> 
> 
> As a general helpful hint, hopefully, focus on the lfs-hackers archives.
> All these things are addressed in there. Also, the b6_0 CVS book may
> have a lot of this addressed (I'm not sure, haven't looked) because it
> was based on the BE-LFS stuff.
> 
> 
>>Many Thanks,
>>James Buchanan
> 
> 
> Wish I could help more, but I only follow the posts on this stuff so
> far, haven't actually done any of it.
> 

James,

LFS 6.1 will probably use the PLD headers, see 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jeremy/newxml/ which includes the download 
locations.

But be warned this is NOT a stable build.  LFS 6.0 might be a bit more 
stable - uses gcc-3.3.3 - and also those PLD headers:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~winkie/books/6.0-cvs/

I've built an LFS-6.1-ish system, and there were a lot of issues with 
BLFS packages.  If you decide to do it, subscribe or monitor 
lfs-hackers, read the archives of it for the last two months at least, 
and be prepared to do some debugging.  However, on IA32, at least, it 
seems quite good.  I would not say it is perceptably better or faster 
than LFS-5.1-pre2 though.

R.
-- 
Richard A Downing FBCS CITP
http://www.109bean.org.uk/



More information about the lfs-support mailing list