Status of HLFS project
bobb at netslyder.net
Wed Sep 27 12:45:42 PDT 2006
I am for sure interested in any of the changes you have made. Especially
if there are any errors in the book. I am trudging through jhalfs with
my edited version trying to get everything to flow completely automated.
I do however agree with Robert Connolly that we should probably target
the 2.4 kernel branch. I agree because 2.4 has a more solid track
record, not to mention the seeminlgy experimental state of a lot of
components 2.6 has added. I am running a few 2.6 based HLFS boxes as
production servers, and don't have any issue with them. So admittedly it
is more of a precautionary measure than a necessary one. I am sure
others on the list can come up with arguments for either direction.
My edited book is still a work in progress due to the fact that I
actually want to be able to run jhalfs walk away, and come back to a
completed run before I call it ready for testing. But I could post what
changes I have made on one of my servers whenever I get home later tonight.
To be honest SVN-20060717 works pretty much as is from my experience if
you want to build a system based on linux 2.6. But still I am definately
interested in seeing the changes you have made.
Sebastian Faulborn wrote:
> I have already developed a pretty stable HLFS (ie. I have not found a
> bug yet...).
> Have a look at http://www.secure-slinux.org.
> Basically it is based on HLFS SVN-20060717 with kernel updated to
> 184.108.40.206 and grsecurity
> updated to 2.1.9-220.127.116.11.
> There are a few bugs fixed in the book. It would be a matter of a few
> hours to list them here in
> the mailing list.
> It has a lot of features added and lots of packages from BLFS run on
> it with no problem at all,
> including XOrg, XFCE, Firefox, postfix, fcron, etc. Of course for a
> base HLFS we don't need
> those packages.
> A slightly older version (however with little change) has been running
> for over half a year on
> a production server. No problems either.
> If there is any interest, I could post those changes!
> Sebastian Faulborn
>> Re: Status of HLFS project
>> Robert Connolly <robert at linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:25:24 -0400
>> Hardened LFS Development List <hlfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Great :-) I can't wait to see.
>> On Tuesday 19 September 2006 17:37, Robert Baker wrote:
>>> Well I have about the same schedule as you Robert, but I am
>>> willing to
>>> throw my hat in the ring to help maintain HLFS-Stable. I have a big
>>> interest in seeing that we can work out a hardened system capable of
>>> used for stable server environments. I think that starting another
>>> for Stable is exactly what needs to happen. I am more than willing
>>> to sink
>>> a good 10-20 hrs a week into maintaining, and I have allready begun
>>> on a branch of the SVN-20060717 build of HLFS. I am taking your
>>> at face value, and making the required adaptations to work from a more
>>> stable package set. I will have my edited HLFS-Book ready for review
>>> sometime this weekend time permitting.
>>> Hopefully we can get the ball rolling here, and I would love to help
>>> with what time I have to do so.
>>> Robert Baker
[This E-mail scanned for viruses courtesy of Netslyder, Inc.(http://www.netslyder.net)]
More information about the hlfs-dev