Test Man wrote: > One of the big appeals > (I'm sure I'm not alone) of LFS is that it runs superbly on old > hardware, so it's a shame you are not interested.
Why? We each have our own interests. >> We may have a non-compatibility in the host system requirements in >> that we need to raise the minimum level of packages, but I'm not >> going to put any time in it. > > An odd reply. You have a minimum requirement which goes back 6 years, > but you are apparently not interested in keeping it up to date? I had > hoped to help here. I didn't communicate well. If you can demonstrate what the minimum level should be, I'd be glad to update it. I don't want to do the research though. >> See if you can boot from a commercial distro and use that as the >> base host. > Thanks, but I've been LFS'ing for eight years now and have found it a > far more reliable host than commercial ones. (BTW you missed an > opportunity to plug the LFS Live CDs, which are again more reliable > hosts!). I am discouraging the LiveCD because most people misuse it. That's probably not applicable to you, but we get a lot of people using the sources on the LiveDC and a lot of questions about supporting 6.3 which we don't want to do. I would love it if someone would build a LiveCD of version 6.6 that we could publish. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
