LiveCD building status...

Roger Merchberger zmerch at
Fri Aug 12 14:23:14 PDT 2005

Rumor has it that Doug Ronne may have mentioned these words:
>On 8/12/05, Roger Merchberger <zmerch at> wrote:
> > So, which way is the 'right' way? I'd be happy to go thru and fix the
> > 'wrong' ones to make everything consistent...
>My understanding was LFS packages went in sources and non-lfs packages
>went in the tree to keep sources an lfs directory.

Ah, OK... I guess the fact that some of the versions that the LiveCD 
makefiles were trying to download were slightly different than the actual 
packages on the LiveCD kinda threw me at first (and filled the 
unionfs-based root filesystem), so I just whacked the /sources directory & 
mapped it to the hard drive. As the directory was now empty, it started 
downloading 'em all.

In hindsight, I should have made the /mnt/lfs/sources directory first, 
copied all of the available packages from the /sources directory, *then* 
whacked the /sources directory & symlinked it to /mnt/lfs/sources.

Ah well... they don't call me the Village Idiot for nuthin'...

> >If that is a stable version, you can probably just use that one for your
> >livecd.  Just change the VER part in the Makefile.
>that is what I did.  Worked fine.

I moved the tarball I found into the package directory structure, and it 
worked fine... but the fact that some packages were built from a different 
directory structure threw me for a loop there.

I can still set up the 'download only' rules in the Makefile if 
anyone  else would find them useful.... and this is all a good learning 
experience for me so I could make other changes for the possibility of a 
6.1-3 LiveCD...

Roger "Merch" Merchberger

P.S. As always, I'll keep y'all posted on my progress...

Roger "Merch" Merchberger  --  SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
  _±±_                          zmerch at
(©||®)  If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
  _)(_   disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.

More information about the livecd mailing list