bryan at bcpub.com
Thu May 10 08:23:41 PDT 2001
On Thursday 10 May 2001 16:32, you wrote:
> On Thursday 10 May 2001 08:08, Bryan Dumm babbled:
> > lynx/links/w3m was considered, just not added this time. What is
> > everyone's favorite?
> > Yea I built it with a i686 base at the moment. I tried i586 before, but
> > we found some problems. Should I rebuild one @ i586 or go lower? How
> > about a i586 and we find some other development for a i486 or special
> > requirement type of deal? I wanna take it to a fairly common level, but I
> > hadn't planned on making a one size fits all type of cd. Unless others
> > want to help make that work, as I wouldn't have that type of time... :)
> I'm coming into this late, and haven't done any homework yet so forgive if
> this has been brought up...
np, it's common around these parts it seems :)
> Instead of making the alfs iso "workable" on all these different platforms,
> couldn't we create the iso as a kind of "rescue disk" that had just enough
> to boot off of, had a copy of the lfs tarballs, and contained some kind of
> script that would walk the use through partitioning their system, and then
> copied the tarballs onto the syste, and started compiling? That way if I
> booted my old 486 off the cd, it would compile and install an LFS system
> that was 486 appropraite. Likewise, when I took that cd and put it in my
> brand new Thunderbird 800 system, it would compile and install an Athlon
> appropraite LFS...
> The cd would obviously have to contain a "live" running system that was
> compiled for say a 386 (lowest common denominator) with all the tools being
> able to compile for other targets (486, 586, k6, etc). Should be doable,
> dont you think?
Nope. Thats what I think. :) How many 386's or 486's do you know that
have a bootable cdrom drive, much less a cdrom drive at all. :) Maybe a
bootdisk and some 486's but I think your pushing it in 386 land. This is
why I just choose i586 before.... Anyone with an opinion on this, what
should be done?
Have you looked at alfs? The script you speak of is a XML profile. ALFS
itself is the foundation built around making that XML profile do something
useful. If you look at the /ALFS directory and do things like run the profiles
in /ALFS/profiles you can do just what you described. ALFS will also clean up
after itself. If you want to alter or change anything all you need to do is
change the profile. In fact there is some different styles, and additional
profiles beyond LFS on the cd. The only thing it won't do is partition,
mke2fs for you yet. Why? We decided against it in the beginning. No reason to
muck up people's systems till our foundation is good and strong. I expect to
see that as we get back into developing more alfs handlers.
> To me this should be the ultimate goal of LFS. Kind of our own distribution
> that in the very act of installing is custom-tailored to your hardware. We
> say 'here's this cd, take it home, boot off it. Answer some questions,
> watch the fireworks, remove the cd, reboot. Bam! You're new LFS system
> compiled and optimized for your hardware."
> What you think?
I think you are fairly close to what we have discussed with ALFS. Please
check out the mail archives, code, and website for furthur details :). Hope
ALFS works for you like it has for us. Please contribute. ;)
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss