util-linux 2.12a fails, headers = kernel 2.6.6

James Buchanan buchanan at iinet.net.au
Tue May 11 12:23:17 PDT 2004

Ken Moffat wrote:
>  There is no problem running 2.6 kernels against LFS-5 (or indeed
> earlier LFS's).  Similarly, building LFS-5 *with-2.4-headers* and a 2.6
> kernel.

Great!!!  So I could use LFS 5.0 or 6.0, use my current 2.4 headers 
(I'm building inside Slackware 9.1 running in VMware Workstation 4.5 
with access to a real physical disk), and when it comes time to build 
the kernel I can just build a 2.6 kernel instead of a 2.4?

>  OTOH, if you want to move on to nptl and/or udev then you'll want what
> is going to be 6.0 or 6.1.  I'm not entirely sure how to get what will
> be 6.0 (it's come up in the last few days, I think you can pull the book
> from CVS using a b6_0 tag ?), while the future 6.1 is in CVS HEAD.  Of
> course, if you're not on i686 expect pain as a matter of course!

I'm on i686 thank goodness ;)

I think I'll give LFS 6.0 or 6.1 a spin.

>  In theory, the 6.0 series will already be supported on this list and
> 6.1 isn't for those who need support, at least if I've understood
> correctly.  YMMV, E&OE.

Hmmm... well.  I might need some help especially for serious build 
failures where I can't diagnose the problem (I need practice here so 
it makes sense to use 6.0 I think.)

I'm building a minimal, bare bones programmer's distribution by the 
way.  Just programming and development tools, with the Debian package 
management system.  No default X install, no servers or anything like 
that, just the essential stuff: Python, Lisp, GCC, O'Caml, et al.  :)


More information about the lfs-support mailing list