recommendations v2.2 -or- v2.3.5b

Joe Weidenbach weidenba at
Sat Jul 1 01:46:15 PDT 2000

> 1) v2.2 used linux86 and 2.3.5b uses bin86. bin86 looks kinda old.
> Can I use linux86 instead?

This is, after all, Linux from scratch.  The great thing is, you can do
whatever you want!  From earlier discussion, it sounds like Gerard made the
switch for size, which is understandable.  From what I hear, linux86 is easier

> 2) Could a person have built v2.2 by using the chroot method?

Yup.  Would have made things a wee bit easier too (since there's no text editor
installed once you reboot into LFS in 2.2)

> 3) Can I use linux-kernel 2.2.16 instead of 2.2.14? I have kernel
> sources all over the place and have 4 different kernels available to
> use with LFS. I figured I could just use the non-modular 2.2.16 that
> I built before for emergencies.

Another thing that I did, and it works like a champ.

> 4) Bash 2.04. Can it be used with LFS v2.2?

Again, bash 2.04 is what I used and it works great.

> And finally, thanks for your patience, which LFS should I use and
> why?

I'm in the process of installing 2.3.5b on one of my systems.  Each version
gets easier to install.  However, there are occasional bugs that crop up, and
those show up on this list most of the time.  If you don't want to mess with
those, make sure to get all the patches from the 2.2 page (they're in the
installation area) and just use that.  Or go to one of the mirrors and use
2.3.4.  That's what I'm on right now and it works beautifully.

Mail archive:
IRC access: server: port: 6667 channel: #LFS
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list