util-linux 2.12a fails, headers = kernel 2.6.6

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Tue May 11 13:35:36 PDT 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004, James Buchanan wrote:

> 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?

 With 5.0 or 5.1 (currently -pre2) you build with 2.4 headers.  With
what will be 6.0/6.1 you use sanitised headers, but 6.1 will use gcc-3.4
as well.

> >  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 ;)

Boring :->

> 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.)
 Note I call them "what will be". 6.0 is scheduled for release as soon
as 5.1 is out of the door, but at the moment it's not in any sort of
freeze AFAIK.  6.1, or HEAD, will definitely be a moving target.

> 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.  :)
> --James

 But how can you get by with only 6 terminal sessions ?

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-support mailing list