init : libssl.so : cannot open shared object file : kernel panic!

Richard rgollub at uninet.com.br
Thu Jul 3 05:55:48 PDT 2003


Ulrich Fahrenberg wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Laurent H. wrote:
> 
> > I've successfully installed my lfs 4.1, and I've mainly done
> > everything in blfs 1.0 within chroot.
> 
> This is in general considered a BadThing[TM], as in chroot, you have
> the old system's kernel running, which normally would be different
> from your LFS kernel. Especially X has been known to not wnat to
> compile in chroot, and I'd expect problems with KDE and Gnome, too.

	I am not going to write a major essay here to argue against your
"statement" above, nor have I any interest in starting a flame war, but:

	a) who are those "knowledgables", and where have they expressed their
opinions, in support of such claims (chroot is "bad"/substrate kernel
"interference", and future problems to be expected, by using the
technique)?

	b) against the stated theory, MY actual practice and experience of over
almost 3 years with LFS, shows that since:

	- LFS 2.4.3 and X 3.3.6 and KDE 2.x

	- all the intervening libraries and supporting applications required,

	- the actual applications (servers, GUIs, etc)

using 3 different kernel versions up to 2.4.20, over 4 generations of
LFS builds I have already produced (and a generation currently on its 
way), in short, everything that nowadays is referred to "BLFS", is/was
compiled in every build WITHIN chroot.

	And, most immportant of all: I NEVER experienced ANY failure that could
be attributed to the technique.

	Thus, bear in mind, that against facts there are no arguments.

	Richard

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-support mailing list