Ken Moffat wrote: >On Mon, 9 May 2005, Jon Grosshart wrote: > >>Okay... I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the input. It took me >>months to get to the point where I'm at now. Used pkgtool and am at >>307 packages and counting.... Theres no way in hell I'm starting >>over... :-) Replacing packages is a snap with pkgtool so I'll most >>defenately look at just rebuilding core ones and see what happens... >> >Jon, > > LFS users usually build a new system when they change glibc - >otherwise if the new glibc breaks, your existing system is trashed. >Potentially, if the rebuilt glibc does work you might experience >occasional breakage in applications, because your userspace is built >against sanitised 2.6 kernel headers and interface changes are not >backwards-compatible. > > Apart from that, you'll need to create static devices to use a 2.4 >kernel - that in itself will be an interesting exercise because you >already have a tmpfs mounted over /dev. > > So far, you haven't indicated why you want to use a 2.4 kernel, but it >sounds like an opportunity to build a new system with a less-bloated >blfs 8) > >Ken > Well, I see what your saying... I'll atleast try to get it working. I have binaries for everything. If it breaks, I'll just reinstall my old ones and all is well again. This was a big reason for writing build scripts and making binaries in the first place. As I stated earlier, many of my older/working drivers are breaking with each subsquient release of 2.6.xx.... It's no longer a possibility for me to use 2.6 unless I want to give up hardware acceleration and my dial-up modem among other things... My working drivers are no longer maintained for my laptop on a 2.6 kernel. I don't really have hardly any bloat as well. A third of my total install base is Gnome.... That's where most of them come from. The rest are standard LFS/BLFS packages that I use and need on a day-to-day basis.
I'm sure your right tho. I should have thought of this ahead of time and came out of the gate with a 2.4.xx kernel. That way it wouldn't be an issue running both kernel branches. Slack runs both with no problems. I assume thats because he built everything against 2.4.xx and 2.4 is "forward-compatable" with 2.6...... Oh well.... We'll see how it turns out. Thanks for the input Ken... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
