Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux From Scratch 7.1 Published

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the read-the-manual dept.

Linux 94

Thinkcloud writes "The Linux From Scratch (LFS) project has published version 7.1 of its manual for building a custom Linux installation. The new release of the step-by-step instructions is 345 pages long and uses more up-to-date components than previous versions – for example, the 3.2.6 Linux kernel and version 4.6.2 of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). The update also includes fixes to bootscripts and corrections to the text, as well as updates to 20 packages."

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just in case... (5, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39279895)

...I didn't want to see the girlfriend this weekend anyway.

Re:Just in case... (4, Funny)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39279947)

girlfriend

LOL .. Good one.

Re:Just in case... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280117)

Just because you're stalking her doesn't make her your girlfriend.

Re:Just in case... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39281027)

FTFY: Just because you're stalking him doesn't make him your girlfriend.

Re:Just in case... (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282821)

Yeah, I bet these guys [budgetblinds.com] are DEVASTATING to his relationship.

Re:Just in case... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280691)

...I didn't want to see the girlfriend this weekend anyway.

What do you mean you are spending your whole weekend with it...

Re:Just in case... (0)

Iconoclasism (1660709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281857)

"girlfriend?" Isn't that a nice way of saying "fag hag?" I mean... do you HAVE to see her every weekend?

Re:Just in case... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39283453)

What distribution?

Re:Just in case... (3, Informative)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39284693)

...I didn't want to see the girlfriend this weekend anyway.

Hmmm. you might be on to something. I'm trying to simultaneously break up with my girlfriend as well as learn more about system administration. Building a LFS box might help me learn to automate a process I'd rather not do manually.

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39279905)

All 3 remaining Linux users will be thrilled I'm sure.

Meanwhile the rest of us will be using our new iPads and Macbook air's to do *real work*.

Losers.

Re:Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39279933)

All 3 remaining Linux users will be thrilled I'm sure.

Meanwhile the rest of us will be using our new iPads and Macbook air's to do *real work*.

Losers.

If you call looking at gay porn real work that is....

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39279945)

you fail at life. kill yourself

Re:Who cares? (0)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39279965)

*real work*.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days? I wouldn't know - I'm too busy at my job doing this thing we simply call "work" on systems that were built with exactly that in mind. Of course, that is also one of the reasons why I will not be attempting any LFS builds any time soon.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39285771)

Someone is confusing learning with working...

Nice for you!

Re:Who cares? (2)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280215)

Right. A bunch of the software in OS X, and a bunch of the libraries that software on it uses are made by the Linux/Unix crowd. You enjoy Angry Birds though, i'm sure that will be practical experience for a job at some point.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

lsolano (398432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39284005)

People that knows that servers exists, do care. Maybe people with dozens of servers would like to learn

If you think that *real work* can be done just with iPads and macbooks, you don't know what real work is.

I love my Mac, but I love my Debian servers too. There's a world out there beyond desktop computers, iTunes and Mail. And by the way, there are better browsers than Safari.

Before the trolling begins... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39279923)

Before the trolls like Hairyfeet, insight140, noh8erz, so on and so forth shit on the comment section, this is for LEARNING so no, the intended audience isn't your grandmother, aunt tilly, bosses daugher-in-law or whoever else you want to bring up. Please don't troll. That is all.

Re:Before the trolling begins... (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39283807)

hairyfeet makes some good contributions to this website.

Re:Before the trolling begins... (2)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 2 years ago | (#39284415)

Nice try, hairyfeet.

I must be working too hard... (2)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39279979)

When I saw the headline, I thought that the article described how you could create a linux kernel using http://scratch.mit.edu/ [mit.edu]

Which would have been a hell of a neat trick.

myke

Re:I must be working too hard... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280367)

Well, scratch would appear to have support for a clock, and a NOR gate, so an x86 compatible scratch VM is only your sanity away...

Re:I must be working too hard... (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39283009)

Let's go create an x86 CPU in Wireworld.

Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (5, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39279991)

LFS is a great learning process that shows you exactly WHAT makes your Linux tick, and what packages depend on eachother. Anyone who uses Linux should do it at least once.

And really, it is not that difficult.. if you follow the guide it is very unlikely you will have problems. And on modern hardware the compile is very fast.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280051)

I think you want dependancy tree instead. LFS is a Devil's trick to make people waste gobbles of time!

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (2, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282085)

Yeah, like school was a waste of time, too. I didn't want to learn all that stuff.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (3, Informative)

MattBD (1157291) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280389)

I second this. A couple of years ago I built an LFS system - unfortunately I buggered up the GRUB install somehow and couldn't fix it, so I wound up overwriting it with Slackware instead. Next time I have a go at it, I'll probably use a desktop rather than a laptop perched on the bed - it was not nice being sat there waiting hours for stuff to compile!

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (2)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280793)

Last time I tried LFS it I didn't have any VM software. I'm think I'm going to try it again this weekend.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (4, Informative)

bjoast (1310293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280979)

I actually built my first LFS system on a netbook with an Intel Atom processor... It took a few days, but it was definitely worth it. You learn a lot.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282035)

Thank you for the remarkably informative post.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (3, Interesting)

h2k1 (661151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280693)

Ten years ago i was an enthusiast of lfs, and i even made a Makefile for automated build of lfs... It was an extremely fun thing to do, and opened my eyes and made me understand that Slackware was the only prebuild distro that anyone should ever need for home use.

Be a real Jedi, do CLFS instead (2)

snikulin (889460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280867)

... and do it in Cygwin targeting x686. I've done it :P

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (0)

kwoff (516741) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280935)

LFS is a great learning process that shows you exactly WHAT makes your Linux tick, and what packages depend on eachother.

Hello, the 90s called... ;) I guess my path through distros was a way of getting away from dependency hell [wikipedia.org] . But it's a good sign: Linux has arrived on the desktop if people are now encouraged to learn about their distro's inner workings, as opposed to being forced to in order to get it working!

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282123)

Oh yeah, LFS is fun. I ported mine to my old Sun Sparc box.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (4, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282445)

I agree completely. I built an LFS system many years ago just to better understand the process a distribution goes through and to get a better grasp of the overall software components and build approaches used by Linux systems overall.

It was a highly educational experience, but I'll stick with Debian-based systems that use APT updates, thank you very much. While educational to roll your own installation, rolling your own updates is incredibly time consuming.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (3, Informative)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282653)

Anyone who uses Linux should do it at least once.

Did it while I was in school. Glad I did it, but wouldn't do it again. Everything was great, but software got out of date quickly, and upgrading anything in the middle of the dependency tree or higher just required too much time and baby-sitting. Just took way too much time to maintain.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282943)

If you want something more maintainable I'd suggest Gentoo. It gives you most of the flexibility of LFS, and exposure to enough of what is going on that you're likely to keep learning. It is also a lot easier to keep up-to-date.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287917)

I actually moved to Gentoo from LFS. And to Ubuntu from Gentoo. I've simply run out of time in the day to spend installing/maintaining software.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (1)

doti (966971) | more than 2 years ago | (#39293235)

Same with me.

Did it once while in university, and it was ran as my desktop system for many months.
Just gave up because it was hard to upgrade the system.

But it was a rewarding experience.
Glad I did it while I had some spare time, as I feel never in my life I'll be able to do it again.
Or maybe when I'm retired?

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315661)

But it was a rewarding experience. Glad I did it while I had some spare time, as I feel never in my life I'll be able to do it again.

Exactly. I miss school... mostly for the craploads of free time I had.

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39285403)

"Anyone who uses Linux should do it at least once."

That's a bit extreme.

"Everyone who uses a car should build one from scratch at least once."

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287009)

If it wouldn't likely mean my fiery death, then sure!

Now building a gas RC car from scratch... that's starting to sound like fun!

Re:Everyone should do a LFS install at least once (1)

Hazelfield (1557317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306005)

LFS is a great learning process that shows you exactly WHAT makes your Linux tick, and what packages depend on eachother. Anyone who uses Linux should do it at least once.

No. Anyone who works with Linux, develops for Linux, is a Linux sysadmin or just happens to be interested should do it at least once. Then there's us who prefer distros of the more automated type (I'd rather avoid terms like "beginner-friendly", "user-friendly" or "bloated" but you probably know what I mean). People who use some flavour of Linux simply because it fits our needs. We shouldn't go anywhere near LFS.

bah plain old recipe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280009)

I dare someone to try this without gcc compiler and gnu userland.

In theory you should be able to build kernel with intel compiler.

Re:bah plain old recipe (5, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280131)

I dare someone to try this without gcc compiler and gnu userland.

fuck off, RMS.

Re:bah plain old recipe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39285203)

I think they call that BSD UNIX

"Portable C Compiler Is Building FreeBSD, Nearing v1.0"
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTA2Mg

for example.

man build(1).

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=build&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+9.0-RELEASE&arch=default&format=html

Re:bah plain old recipe (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280235)

Building the kernel with icc is trivially easy, it does not replace gnu userland however.

When I ran gentoo it was trivial to setup a whitelist of packages to use ICC on, instead of gcc.

Re:bah plain old recipe (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281199)

In theory you should be able to build kernel with intel compiler.

You can build it with clang too. And if you wished the entire userland could be non-FSF as it is in Android. Android uses a BSD licenced C runtime called BIONIC. There are other C runtimes which I assume someone could port, as well as the likes of uClibc which is LGPL but isn't owned by the FSF and could be coupled with Busybox for a userland. Depends on what a person is trying to build of course.

Re:bah plain old recipe (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39284573)

Can you build it in Clang?

THis was discussed 6 years ago here and the Linux Kernel has many GCC specific headers and hooks that it wont compile in anything else.

Re:bah plain old recipe (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39285269)

Clang has been able to compile modified versions of the kernel for about 18 months. Here is a summary of the work at the here [lwn.net] time which describes what worked and what didn't. You can track the remaining issues for compilation here [llvm.org] . So while it's not officially supported, clang is able to produce working kernels. This suggests that it is a matter of time, code maturity and will rather than some fundamental problem. Biggest issues appear to relate to some missing register support and 16-bit x86 assembly. Most gcc extensions are actually supported for compatibility reasons but some are not.The FreeBSD kernel and userland can also be built with Clang.

Then ten billion nurds created ten billion distros (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280021)

Should be some interesting variations.

Re:Then ten billion nurds created ten billion dist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280515)

There aren't ten billion people on the planet yet. And I don't think there are even 1 billion nerds, which would imply one in every 7 people are nerds.

100 million, maybe. Of those, fewer still are Linux users. Fewer would want to even go to the gentoo level and compile packages. Fewer still would want the knowledge of building LFS. Of those, even fewer would want to make a distro...

Re:Then ten billion nurds created ten billion dist (1)

dkuntz (220364) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280787)

Don't forget all the fake nerds out there... you know, the blonde cheerleaders who put on the fake glasses and say they're nerds cause they play XBox...

Re:Then ten billion nurds created ten billion dist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39283273)

you are not accounting for the 10 million nerds with 1000 fake profiles. multiple personality disorder could make this the year of the linux desktop!

Re:Then ten billion nurds created ten billion dist (1)

Xeleema (453073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39298109)

10 million nerds with 1000 fake profiles. multiple personality disorder could make this the year of the linux desktop!

No it won't!..Yes it will!
No it won't!...Yes it will!
No it won't!....*sigh* No it won't! Wait, what?

eBook formats? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280289)

There's a PDF and an HTML version of their manual. With the advent of eBook readers like the Kindle, you think they'd release an eBook version. ePub is more open than Kindle's .mobi, but even an ePub version is easily convertible to .mobi.

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280599)

Nobody clueful enough to want to build LFS would care about such formats.

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39284069)

Actually, as often as I a) use it as a quick reference for all manner of details, even with regards to other distros, and b) as many times as I wished I had a paper copy mid-build while refusing to actually bother with printing... there are use cases for an epub copy.

Re:eBook formats? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280725)

There's a PDF and an HTML version of their manual. With the advent of eBook readers like the Kindle, you think they'd release an eBook version. ePub is more open than Kindle's .mobi, but even an ePub version is easily convertible to .mobi.

If only they would make some sort of Portable Document Format...

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280849)

That's great and all, but this "Portable Document Format" you speak of does not reflow text. Have you ever tried reading PDFs in Kindles?

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39281163)

Amusingly enough, I was just loding it on my Kindle DX.

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39282719)

Works just fine. Hell it reads the html too!

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39286239)

all the ereaders i know us read pdfs folks. copy it over.

Re:eBook formats? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39281195)

We use the Docbook XML schema to markup the text of the book. There is support in the Docbook XSL stylesheets for producing ePub output and I tried it once (despite it requiring Ruby which I have no other use for), but the output wasn't particularly good looking. It probably just requires some tweaking to the stock stylesheets, but I didn't have the time to look into it any further than that. I know it's a cop-out, but patches welcome :-)

Matt Burgess (LFS editor + part-time release manager)

Re:eBook formats? (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282485)

Well, if there's one [wikispaces.com] part of my life as a corporate drone that I miss it would be working with the LFS team. Greets to the LFS IRC team.

Re:eBook formats? (3, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282517)

It would be very welcome, and (cop-out alert) had I had the time I would gladly have taken it as an excuse to learn about ebook formats.

An ebook version would be great, simply because it's searchable. But then, you want to take advantage of the format to create a really good, interactive index, perhaps links to a glossary and to external pages for all the included applications and so on. Suddenly it's no longer a quick format conversion but a whole new document.

So yes, I understand why you're reluctant to take it on.

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39283605)

Fwiw, I just ran the nochunk HTML version through calibre to get a mobi version. It doesn't look bad at all. There are couple of straggler bullets in the toc, but otherwise it looks perfectly readable.

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39281419)

Convert an ePub with Calibre. Calibre natively imports HTML and then it is a simple convert.

Re:eBook formats? (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281431)

There's a PDF and an HTML version of their manual. With the advent of eBook readers like the Kindle, you think they'd release an eBook version. ePub is more open than Kindle's .mobi, but even an ePub version is easily convertible to .mobi.

If only ePub used HTML... then we could write a trivial converter that took HTML pages and zipped them up and call it an ePub.

Oh wait, that's what ePubs are!

Though, ePub uses a restricted subset of HTML - but it does support stuff like CSS. Heck, i think the Kindle format is also the same - restricted HTML.

Re:eBook formats? (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281433)

I think if you where going to use this, then you'd probably want the ability to copy and paste that exists in the html version.

Re:eBook formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39283997)

This makes me suddenly wonder if you can get enough of a toolchain into android to get started... and I actually think it may just be possible. I think this is one of three times in my life I've wished I had a proper ebook reader to toy with... the little one I snagged on sale is a little underpowered to try to put through quite that much. (and as a couple points of clarity, yes I'm that crazy, and while I admit the idea started out as such, it's no longer meant to be dripping with sarcasm about the usefulness of copy/paste on a proper ebook reader for this... I want to try it).

Re:eBook formats? (1)

LatePaul (799448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39286021)

Use Calibre to convert it.

Dear Slashdot (2, Interesting)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280349)

How about a button to collapse a comment thread? Stick a little toggle button to each displayed comment to collapse/expand it and its children comments.

It would make it easier to skip over off-topic pedantic comment threads (or whatever thread the reader prefer to disregard) that often run interminably long while burying more germane comments far down in the page.

Re:Dear Slashdot (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280387)

What do you want differently than what clicking ont he subject does?

Re:Dear Slashdot (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280695)

By "collapsing" I mean to hide the child comments entirely including the subjects, with just a marker button, perhaps on the root comment's subject line, to indicate if there is any child comments. This way the comment thread/subtree I'm not interested in will not take up any vertical space.

Re:Dear Slashdot (1)

tpotus (1856224) | more than 2 years ago | (#39280435)

Click the comment title, Einstein.

Re:Dear Slashdot (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281349)

How is it obvious that clicking the comment title collapses and opens the threaded discussion following it? What part of "comment title" says to you "window shade"?

Re:Dear Slashdot (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 2 years ago | (#39282539)

Comment titles are not clickable for me.

Re:Dear Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280631)

I read this and I'm thinking WTF...?

Then, I remembered where I was and it's elite user base...

Re:Dear Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39282777)

Eerily ironic your comment is

Form scratch? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280595)

To build Linux from scratch you first have to ... Make universe

    Carl Sagan

Re:Form scratch? (1)

Zilog (932422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39285765)

~ # cd /usr/src/universe
/usr/src/universe # make
/usr/src/universe # make install

Done.

i...i... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39280805)

... i just don't want to compile...

good news everyone! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39281159)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D1cap6yETA

no livecd (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281605)

The LiveCD is unmaintained and can't build 7.0 or newer.

Are there any other bootable environments that could build this, or is one supposed to run this from an installed host now?

Re:no livecd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39281835)

Well... the last I built an LFS system, I went to the only source of a known functional toolchain without jumping through 300 needless hoops I could think of... I unpacked a Gentoo stage3, chrooted, and started my LFS build from there (which, no, does not mean a necessity to actually *install* Gentoo on the host system. I was working from an old RIP USB I had on hand).

Re:no livecd (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39281977)

LFS can typically be built from any Linux host system - a Knoppix CD or a liveCD for any other distro would probably work.

Or you could just check the host requirements [linuxfromscratch.org] .

Re:no livecd (2)

japp1egate (2035368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39284405)

As someone who is currently undergoing a LFS install into a VirtualBox VM, I can confirm that the use of a live environment (live-CD, or what-have you) works perfectly. I am currently building my LFS under the Linux Mint 11 x86 gnome CD. As for the build itself - wheeee!

Re:no livecd (1)

chiph (523845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287019)

I was bummed after looking over the LFS intro, in that you aren't building Linux on a bare machine -- you're starting with a pre-installed distro of some kind.

I would be more interested in replicating the process that Torvalds went through when creating the OS.

Re:no livecd (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287639)

You're coming as close as you can to building Linux on a bare machine without manually inputing machine code - the purpose of the host machine is to give you things like:
  * a running kernel
  * a shell
  * a C compiler
  * a linker
  * The standard C libraries
  * Some very basic text processing tools, like awk and sed
  * A way to download the source code
  * A way to set up a file system on the disk
IIRC, Linus Torvalds used an existing Unix for most of this when he was first writing Linux.

The first steps involve setting up a completely empty partition, then compiling the C library (glibc), linker (binutils), C compiler (gcc), a shell (bash), and a few other tools. Then you chroot onto the partition you just set up and work in your chroot jail, with the only dependency on the original distro being the running kernel. Once you get to the point of having a bootable system, you leave the original distro completely behind.

Re:no livecd (1)

WombleGoneBad (2591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39295669)

This is all true... but... the previous poster is complaining about the lack of a live cd, and i agree with them. I built my LFS system from their live cd (a few years ago now), and i suspect a lot of folk would like to approach it this way. If you are starting with bare metal, a convenient livecd is exactly what you need.

Re:no livecd (1)

awshidahak (1282256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289721)

I was bummed after looking over the LFS intro, in that you aren't building Linux on a bare machine -- you're starting with a pre-installed distro of some kind.

I would be more interested in replicating the process that Torvalds went through when creating the OS.

IIRC Torvalds had Minix pre-installed on his machine while he was first building Linux.

Re:no livecd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383785)

That would be exceptionally complicated.

From what I recall, (and I could be wrong) the Linux kernel started out as a college project, basically a program that ran independant of an OS and all it did was count. He went online to get input from the community on various aspects and the kernel started to grow and grow. Eventually, the community started getting involved in creating an OS that used the kernel. A lot of this was done in chat, forums and emails.

I think it'll be impossible to replicate that.
Now you might write a kernel from scratch as a challenge.

Any such thing for BSD? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39285259)

Is there any similar thing for BSD? I'd like to do something similar w/ OpenBSD - make a WRT out of it, but don't know how. So such a guide, but w/ OBSD, would be really helpful.

Re:Any such thing for BSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39285401)

Not sure what you are after but..
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html

I find bsd to be much simpler then linux

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>