LiveCD or No LiveCD?

Julio Meca Hansen lydianknight at
Mon Feb 25 10:37:38 PST 2008

Hi Jeremy,

I'm not sure if my opinion would count as I'm not a formal developer of LFS, 
more of an user trying to track some new packages and trying to inform if 
there's any anomaly in some of them, but, well... here goes my two cents:

LiveCD or not LiveCD? LiveCD without any need of thinking about it...

Why? first of all, if we talk about using ubuntu (as I've read) forces you 
to use apt-get to install the packages needed for compilation of LFS (and 
apt-get is NOT an intuitive step for every users even if they rely on 
Synaptic or any other form of package management tool). The ideal startup 
for LFS compilation is... start compiling with the book steps, not having to 
take an extra step to ensure your host have the required packages to start 
the process. the LFS LiveCD has all the packages you need, a version of the 
book, a browser, a console... that's just everything you could need to start 
the journey.

Second, the LiveCD is compiled 'the LFS way', that's... every package has 
its headers placed in the /usr/include hierarchy, so you don't have to 
search for -dev/-devel packages, but...

What I would suggest is (and it's my opinion but it doesn't have to be the 
absolute path to follow):

Keep the LiveCD with the bare minimum packages needed to run, I think a 
better configuration would be something like:

- base system (with the latest kernel and toolchain included (ideally))
- packages (or not, as there's the option of -nosrc iso image)
- X11 + xterm

and with the graphical desktop... hmm... do we really need XFCE? it's a 
great environment but... what about twm with just two windows started at 
startup (an xterm session and seamonkey/firefox)?

it should keep the package list for building the LiveCD at a relative 
minimum, and it would be faster to load than having to rely on any other 
form of graphics interface, but... that's my opinion, of course...

What do you think?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeremy Huntwork" <jhuntwork at>
To: "Development of LFS LiveCD" <livecd at>
Cc: "LFS Developers Mailinglist" <lfs-dev at>; 
<lfs-support at>; "BLFS Development List" 
<blfs-dev at>; <lfs-chat at>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: LiveCD or No LiveCD?

> Hello Everyone,
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3) It leads to less testing from other hosts
> 4) A seeming lack of community interest in contributing. Especially,
> essential testing (and reports on the results of tests!) on varied
> hardware does not seem to be taking place
> As you may guess, I have mixed feelings about this. But after reflecting
> on it a bit, my hesitancy to agree comes mostly from personal attachment
> to the CD and perhaps not what is best for LFS.
> At this point I need community input. I realize that many of you may use
> and appreciate the CD, just as I do. But realistically, this project
> will die of its own if it does not get some help. And if that happens,
> then LFS would be better off removing the dead weight.
> I have some energy and some ideas to put back into the project, but only
> if I get some help with development and testing. I need to know two 
> things:
> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> degrading the quality of LFS)
> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive?
> If the answer to both questions is not a solid yes, I'm afraid that
> we'll have no choice but to kill the project.
> --
> JH
> -- 
> FAQ:
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page 

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list