Minor problem in BELFS profile

David Mascall lfs at mascall.dot.net
Fri Apr 30 08:09:35 PDT 2004


"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote in message
news:409250EE.5020907 at linuxfromscratch.org...
> David Mascall wrote:
>
> > Also, I know the "real name" of this file is defined in generel.ent, but
> > would it make sense to call it it linux-config-kernel-version (to match
the
> > version of the kernel being built) so that multiple linux config files
can
> > be held in the source directory ? ie kernel-config-2426,
kernel-config-265
> > etc.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here; you can specify any name
> for the source file that you want in general.ent. I will modify the
> profile to copy that file from &orig_packages_dir to &packages_dir when
> it copies the rest of the source files/patches; will that not be enough
> for what you are trying to do?

I am probably nitpicking :-)

I keep all LFS/BLFS/BELFS packages in one orig_dir, which is where the
linux-config file(s) would also live. So yes I can name them as above and
put the correct name in generel ent.

However in my experience chapter 8 will hang if you dont use a .config file
thats the same "version" as the kernel you are trying to build.

There is a chicken and egg problem with the profiles if the kernel version
being used in the profiles is newer than any you have used before. You need
to unpack the kernel source and run a make menuconfig to get a .config file
that can then be used when running the profile (obviously you only need to
do this the first time you build the new version of a kernel with the
profile).

Therefore all I was suggesting was that the "linux-config" file should be
"versioned" in the profiles to make sure it matches the kernel being built.

And of course the same problem exists with the LFS profile.

Dave Mascall





More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list