LiveCD or No LiveCD?

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at
Mon Feb 25 08:50:45 PST 2008

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote (somewhat reordered):
>> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it.  A live
>> CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. For someone to
>> use it, with a more current version of LFS, they will just need to download
>> the sources separately.
> But then, it has no advantage over, say, Ubuntu.

I'd say it has the advantage of the user knowing, for the most part,
what packages are in the LiveCD.  However, it is true that it doesn't
offer that much over another LiveCD.

>> Just leave it alone for now and we can look into updating it when a change 
>> makes it necessary.
> And here is a problem: it deviates too much from both LFS and BLFS, and contains 
> a lot of undocumented material (e.g., the whole process of setting up the 
> language, guessing the video driver, and the workaround for iwlwifi bugs in 
> /etc/modprobe.conf--and note that the guessing process with break with Xorg-7.3, 
> and nobody knows when the iwlwifi workaround is safe to remove). It may be 
> easier to start from scratch instead of "updating" this quirky CD.

I disagree.  The LiveCD as it is now is self consistent.  It doesn't
have Xorg-7.3 so that is a non-issue.

A new revision may need to address these issues, but for now is suffices
to serve as a boot platform for a new install of LFS/BLFS.

  -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list