igtenio at gmail.com
Fri Mar 3 16:17:23 PST 2006
On 3/3/06, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Lord Igtenio wrote these words on 03/03/06 16:26 CST:
> > I've built an LFS System twice before, following the book both times.
> > The entire reason I used jhalfs is because I have neither the time
> > nor patience to spend another two and a half days of five-hour
> > intervals to build a third. Call me impatient, call me
> > inexperienced(Not saying you're doing either, mind you),
> > but I read what ALFS was for, skipped it the first two times
> > because I wanted to learn,
> And Lord Igtenio wrote these words on 03/02/06 00:55 CST:
> > The LFS System I'm using is stock(Built exactly according to the LFS
> > except for having installed these packages afterwards:
> > [snip]
> > This's the third LFS System I've made, the first two having apparently
> > errors during creation I didn't catch until later on.
> Now back to the words on 03/03/06 16:26 CST:
> > I was under the impression that was the purpose of ALFS;
> > not to give people a shortcut, but to allow people who
> > have experienced the book and feel comfortable with it
> I'm seeing a bit of contradiction here. Yesterday you say this
> is your third system after fouling the first two up. Now today
> you're saying that it is your third system after building LFS
> twice before and you are now comfortable with it.
> See my point? :-)
I apologize, I should've clarified earlier.
The first time was because I never applied the patches. I
admit, I erronously believed that they were for the programs
running, and not the ones being compiled. And I believed,
since I was using the LFS LiveCD, they were already
patched. A newbie oversight, and something that was
more brainfart then ignorance(Since I have applied
patches to source code before compiling it before,
just not with LFS). Linux isn't my regular OS yet,
so parts of it still escape me at times.
The second time I did successfully build it(Yes,
including patches. :P :) ), and I ended up fouling it
up during a completely unrelated matter(The
virtual harddrive it was on got corrupted due to
issues with my machine). It's probably wrong to
say LFS got fouled up, since it was technically
my host OS, not LFS itself.
I apologize for not clearing that up. The first time,
I believe it was solely the patches which caused
LFS itself to be messed up. The second time it
was no fault of LFS, which worked flawlessly
as much as I used it, and I still would be if
the issue with the Virtual Drive hadn't occured.
I understand the confusion, and apologize for not
clearing it up sooner.
>No, I don't find your message insulting. It is courteous and on
>point. Problem is, I find your words contradicting. You say
>yesterday that you built LFS manually twice before to learn but
>both of those attempts ended in failure. Now today, you are
>comfortable with LFS and (from what it sounds like to me) you're
>saying you've learned enough to now go ahead and automate the
>building of LFS because you don't want to spend the time to learn
>how to correctly build LFS manually.
>My point was, and actually trying to give you what I feel is good
>advice, that you should forego the automation and learn how to
>build LFS manually. This would result in being better for you in
>the long run. Please don't take my message as sarcastic or
>insulting either, as I'm trying to be helpful, and many times I
>end up not bringing across my intended message.
>And my intended message is that LFS is a wonderful experience and
>much can be learned from it. And I felt you still could use some
>of the learning experience that building LFS manually brings you.
I'm just thankful you weren't offended, since I have an issue with tone.
It wouldn't be the first time I accidently insulted someone because
I might've come across too strongly.
I understand your intended message, and embrace it fully. It's kinda
funny, since(While working on my second system), I showed a guy
LFS, and ended up talking him out of using ALFS, since he had
never done it before. Of course, that's the downside of having an
automated way of doing anything; no one cares to even attempt
it once when they could just have the machine do it for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the blfs-support