LiveCD or No LiveCD?
chepati at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 25 11:06:53 PST 2008
On Monday 25 February 2008 10:37, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 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.
I say drop the project. Let me explain why.
There are generally speaking two types of LFS users -- first time users and
veteran users. We can assume for both groups that these are experienced
linux users -- the fact that they've heard of LFS and are brave/confident
enough to try it says a lot. These are people who are comfortable enough and
knowledgeable enough to find answers to problems they come across compiling
LFS on their specific host architecture/distribution. These are people who
can boot with any of the other live cds out there and compile LFS.
There is always the chance that an inexperienced user might stumble upon LFS.
But this type of user would not be too comfortable with a very limitted live
CD such as the LFS live CD. This type of user would most likely have
achieved a level of comfort with the polish and nice features of an already
installed distribution to venture into the uncharted waters of a live CD.
The best approach is to wisely use the limitted manpower LFS has and channel
it into LFS itself rather than dissipate it over a multitude of spin-off
projects. We should hitch our wagon to an existing live cd platform -- be it
ubuntu or knoppix or one of the other good ones there. No need to reinvent
The problem with using someone else's live cd is that there probably won't be
enough, if any, development tools included on the CD. But you can include a
prebuilt toolchain and the sources for the current LFS version and have the
user chroot into that and just continue from chapter 6. Like we do it in
IPCop, as Gilles already wrote.
More information about the lfs-dev