Chapter 3. After LFS ... Issues - Creating a custom bootdisk

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Sat Jun 14 10:39:01 PDT 2003


On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> Bill's LFS Login said the following on 06/14/03 01:50:
> >>>A couple last notes. It seems to me that it is rediculous for LFS to
> >>>help one create a basic platform without some kind of backup/recovery
> >>>tool - especially one as basic and critical as a recovery or boot
> >>><snip>
> >
> >
> >>As I see, LFS is just a linux system which is able to boot and bootstrap
> >>itself. Neither of these tasks require a bootfloppy. Of course, a bootfloppy
> >>is a very basic thing for a system used day-by-day. But there are other such
> >>things in the BLFS-book. I think the boofloppy has also a good place in
> >>BLFS.
> >
> >
> > I agree with one exception. It is a platform for continued development,
> > installation and education. If you have just spent a substantial time
> > installing this very useful tool and then a tragedy happens before you
> > are able (or realize you *ought*) to make a recovery floppy (acts of
> > God, lightening, coffee in the keyboard - whatever) you may experience
> > great angst. Since I try to "walk a mile in their shoes", it occurred to
> > me that the "final act" of LFS install should be safeguard against
> > tragedy (well, pointing to BLFS would come after, I guess).
>
> The standard reply to this reasoning is:
> LFS is not (primarily) intended to be a fully-fledged distro but the
> consequence of a learning experience. Therefore it has a minimum of

Ok. So if they lose the system, their opportunities to learn increase.
But IMO it has nothing to do with being a full-fledged system (and I
never meant to imply it was such a thing).

> required packages and installation steps. Allthough there are things in
> LFS to make this learning experience a little more comfortable (like the
> recent change to inet-utils instead of netkit-base and the minimal
> configuration), they are not a priority or a primar motivation.
> BLFS fills all the gaps which are left by LFS. It makes your LFS usable
> and is more oriented to making it a full replacement of your distro.
>
> Another (less realistic) reason to not include rescue-floppy-capability
> to LFS is that we should not assume each target machine has a floppy
> drive. So this discussion becomes a little like the discussion to add
> network configuration (to enable Internet access) to LFS; you can't
> satisfy all users without adding a lot of pages.

Like I said at the start of the thread "... doomed at the outset".
'Nuff said.

-- 
Bill Maltby
lfsbill at wlmcs.com
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list