As promised: LFS compilation summary

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu May 8 14:15:40 PDT 2008


Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:

> In my opinion the kernel page is too sparse and static for its
> significance. 

I agree.

> Linux development is rapid these days, so its mission impossible for a
> man to follow all that new exciting stuff.

It's always rapid.  Keeping up requires daily effort.

> Years ago, I suggested a whole chapter or a new book, for the Kernel
> related stuff [boot process (init ...), udev, filesystems, virtual
> machines, etc...].
> We did also found the man (Alexander) who could actually write and 
> support this chapter/book but the community or a part of the community
> didn't want that change at the time, so it was rejected.
> I never stopped to say that it was a big fault.

I wouldn't be opposed to putting that sort of thing in the book.  It should be 
expected to be a snapshot though.  As you note above, things change fairly 
frequently.  It really would take more than one person to do things right.

> Now I am in a position that I don't know if we should continue with LFS,
> as development doesn't simple happen anymore. 

It's true that we don't have enough people with the time and desire to do 
everything that is needed, but I don't agree with your characterization.
Progress is slower, but it comes in chunks rather than in a continuous manner.



> The new gcc is out for months, binutils had a new version and we still
> don't know if we'll have a release and who is going to take this out
> and ... we still struggle in BLFS for a release for almost a year.

The version of the kernel in -dev is only six weeks old.  Binutils is current in 
-dev as is glibc.  gcc is one version out of date and is a little over two 
months old.

I agree that BLFS has been slow, but we are about there.  I think we'll see a 
release this week.   After that, I think you'll see more activity towards a new 
LFS release.  The big issue is whether the next version of LFS will make changes 
to support package management and, if so, what those changes will look like.
Another issue to consider is where we should make an effort to run LFS/BLFS LSB 
compliant.

In any case, I don't see a reason that there won't be a LFS 6.4 or 7.0 release 
sometime this summer.

   -- Bruce





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list