some things to do...

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Thu Dec 2 07:51:45 PST 2004

Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Yep, and I would say, from a *default* perspective, that is what we 
>> should hold to. I have nothing against keep the mount --bind option in 
>> the profiles, but I don't feel it should be default.
> ok. as long as i can change it for myself :))

Right, and there is another issue that Archaic brought up back when the 
bind-mount was part of the defaults in the profile: the files in the 
source location may not be accessible to the "lfs" user that gets 
created during the profile run, and they may be on a read-only 
filesystem. In that case, using a bind-mount will fail, because once 
chapter 5 starts (after switching the lfs user) the package tarballs 
will be inaccessible.

Yes, you can arrange your system properly to avoid this problem, but 
it's not part of the book, so as you all already agreed to, it shouldn't 
be the default in the profile.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list