HLFS-Testing status

Sebastian Faulborn sfaulborn at web.de
Wed Sep 27 10:00:48 PDT 2006


I somehow have the feeling that there are different opinions on
how to get to a stable HLFS.

Basically I would assume that if you want to get to a stable HLFS,
you would try to leave as much as possible unchanged, unless it proves
to be unstable. Otherwise you start another development branch.

I personally agree very much with Kevin Day:

-------------------------------------
For a stable project to happen, you should probably fight the urge to
make any kind of change whatsoever.

To do that, plan the entire project in a manner similar to the following:

1) Make a list of sources/projects/scripts/hacks/instructions that are
currently stable
2) Make a list of $(above) that are currently unstable
3) Make a list of what you intend to get working and what versions
with whatever features you want.
-------------------------------------

So my opinion is:
1) HLFS SVN-20060717 is pretty stable already. I really wonder why there
was not even an attempt to produce a stable HLFS - beeing so close to 
stable.
2) Whats wrong with kernel 2.6.17.8? I have been using 2.6.* kernels for
over 1 year without a single problem - all other distros are using them,
how long do you want to wait before you consider 2.6.* stable enough?
The new patches from Robert work against 2.6.17.8 (frandom, etc.) LFS-6.2
stable just came out with kernel 2.6.16.27 and they consider it to be stable
too! Grsecurity considers 2.6.17.8 stable enough to bring out there new version.
etc.
3) As a result, there is no need to change to GCC-2.95.3, udev, init scripts
and module-init-tools
4) There should be no problems with testsuites. I only had once a slight problem
with the results in bash's testsuite - however this was compiling from a pax
enabled kernel. Bash itself worked fine however.

Actually there are only minor tweaks necessary to make HLFS stable. Maybe everyone could
post problems he had with HLFS SVN-20060717 to this mailing list to see where we need to
fix things?


Sebastian Faulborn
Homepage: http://www.secure-slinux.org

>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Betreff:
>> HLFS-Testing status
>> Von:
>> Robert Baker <bobb at netslyder.net>
>> Datum:
>> Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:23:47 -0500
>> An:
>> Hardened LFS Development List <hlfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
>>
>>
>>Ok, I ended up falling short of my goal of delivering my edited book
>>this weekend. This is mostly due to the kernel maintainers
>>recommendation that GCC-2.95.3 be used to compile the kernel to ensure
>>kernel stability. Beyond that I still have to remove the udev
>>instructions, back port a few of the init scripts, and replace
>>module-init-tools with modutils. After all of those items are in place
>>it looks like I should have a good start. I hope to get a good several
>>hours to work on this tonight.
>>
>>Can anyone see anything I may have overlooked?
>>
>>Robert Baker
>>---
>>[This E-mail scanned for viruses courtesy of Netslyder, Inc.(http://www.netslyder.net)]
>>
>>    
>>




More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list