util-linux 2.12a fails, headers = kernel 2.6.6
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
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