Best Version to Build?

Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at
Wed Mar 18 09:07:43 PDT 2009

Ken Moffat wrote:

Thanks very much for the reply.

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:20:30PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:


>> So, I'm asking the development team which version is considered
>> the best to use at the moment. Is 6.3 now considered "retired"?
>> Is 6.4 considered sufficiently "stable"? I see that there is
>> a 6.4 stable, and a 6.4 development.


>  I've got one machine where I sometimes still run BLFS-6.3 : the
> desktop packages are old, but apart from upgrading the gimp (for
> functionality) and firefox (that's a box where I'm now using the
> ubuntu version of firefox2 - see my BLFS-support post from last
> week) it works (and is currently using 2.6.28 and later kernels).
>  Unfortunately, BLFS still has a way to go before all the versions
> are upgraded for 6.4.  OTOH, if you describe FC2 as "working" you
> probably aren't keen on using the "latest and greatest" versions ;-)

Yes, one of the really off-putting things about FC is the churn.
It wasn't the best distro for me, but I got a contract to do
a Linux port of some SCO and some Windows stuff, and they wanted
me to use FC, so...

I got to experience the joy of the FC2 defect which wiped out
the partition table. I needed this machine to dual boot
Windows XP and FC2 to ensure I didn't break anything in the
WXP version during the port. So, I got to learn about some dual boot
issues with Compaq computers (they go into "recovery" mode if the MBR
isn't as shipped, so I use the Windows Boot Manager in XP to boot GRUB
off of another partition) and also about XP recovery along the
way :-)

>  I expect everyone will discover things they don't like in their
> first LFS/BLFS build, and therefore that system will have a
> comparatively short life.  I don't recommend that people use scripts
> the first time they build LFS, but it's probably a good idea to

I did the 6.3 (up to the point of making bootable) without the
aid of any scripts. It took a few days. :-)

I had to restart once, and clobbered my running system. Wiped
out /dev when I rm'd the chrooted environment while it was
still bound to the "real" /dev. I realized that I had still
got the bound mount just a moment after pressing the return
key :-(

Recovered by booting Knoppix LiveCD, copying /dev to my hard drive,
rebooting, and being up enough to find out how to rebuild /dev
without reinstalling.

Learned a lot more about Linux recovery than I ever wanted to
know :-)

> script the BLFS packages.  Once you have the scripts, updating them
> for a new build is comparatively simple (a few things move around, a
> few get added, sometimes something can drop out).

Are you saying that the BLFS for 6.3 will run fine with 6.4? I'd think
so. Also, as you note, I really don't care about the L&G GUI stuff.
I do my maintenance using a CLI, anyway. I might want a later GIMP
and maybe EOG (mine can't print).

>  Therefore, I suggest you boot the LFS-6.3 system, upgrade the kernel
> (2.6.27 will have longer-term support from upstream), and use it to
> test out the packages you intend to use on it.  When you decide it
> has served its purpose, build a newer system.

Using 6.4 and BLFS from 6.3? Or are you suggesting to wait for the
6.4 release of BLFS?

> ĸen
What is this stuff I see in some posts?

Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the lfs-support mailing list