LFS on ancient system

Erik Postma epostma at nl.tue.win
Sun Nov 23 03:32:24 PST 2003


On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:28:34 +0100, "Albert REINER"
<areiner at tph.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> * Options?
> 
> So now I seem to have about three options:

(snip #1 and #2) 

> - Get rid of DOS and install a minimal Linux on that 300MB partition,
>   compile everything from there, possibly adapting the "next to
>   existing installation" hint as necessary. In this case, I would
>   welcome any advice on the following questions (as well as anything
>   else that might be relevant):

This seems to me the most natural option. Maybe if you're really
adventurous (is this correct English?) you could try letting your
ex-msdos-partition hold the $LFS/tools directory (the 5.0 equivalent of
$LFS/static). I've just completed 5.0 and my $LFS/tools is 136 MB. That's
after stripping though, but including the man and info pages. It would
be very useful to have mount --bind at your disposal for doing smart
things in chap 6 though. Ever thought about upgrading your kernel first?
This might be a good idea anyway -- might solve your gcc problems.

>   - LFS version: If I have to start all new, LFS 5.0 seems to be the
>     more natural candidate; OTOH, there seem to be quite a few people
>     experiencing problems with this release. As you may have guessed,
>     I am not really interested in running the latest and greatest, so
>     4.1 would probably be fine for me, too.

I don't think there are more people with problems than during 4.1. Anyway,
especially for your situation, 5.0 would be more suitable because of the
"pure" aspects: it makes sure that no code or settings from your old
system "contaminate" your installation.

>   - Host distro: This must be small enough to fit into 300MB, and
>     contain sufficient software for compiling the toolchain (besides
>     gcc, binutils, and system headers, what else would I need?). Also,
>     I have to install it from floppies (no CD writer, CD not bootable)
>     and I'd like to keep the pile small. Any suitable distribution?
>     What about a minimal debian plus gcc?

As someone else said, if you could find a Knoppix CD somewhere and a
floppy that allows you to boot from CD-ROM, that would be cool.

>     $LFS would again be on / in my current Linux partition, which
>     itself should be mounted on the 300MB partition, so that the host
>     distro can have all the 300MB for itself.
> 
>   - Next-to hint: I haven't thought a lot about this, but would I need
>     to use the next-to-existing-system hint in this setting?
> 
> 
> So what do you think about what I should do next in this respect? I am
> under the impression that the last of the three options is the most
> promising one. Any input would be appreciated.
> 
> Bye,
> 
> Albert.
> 
> 
> P.S.: Usually I connect to the internet only once a day, which means
>       that I may be quite slow in replying.
> 
> 
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  I don't really expect this, but what I keep hearing about Windows
>      seems to suggest that every new version incurs a huge performance
>      penalty. (3.1 was the last Windows I used.)

Not so on Linux. By and large, newer kernels marginally speed up your
system.

-- 
Erik Postma (Email: reverse the order of nl, tue and win.)



More information about the lfs-support mailing list