Gerard Beekmans wrote: > Whatever the starting point, the fact is that in such cases I don't want > to have to install a Linux system just so I can install LFS on the same > machine. That way I waste partition space. Maybe the space can be > repurposed later on (as a /home partition when all is done for example > or a /var partition - pick something) but maybe it's not practical to do > so after the fact for reasons I haven't thought of yet. > > I'm sure some of you will argue the fact that with today's hard drive > sizes, it's becoming more and more a non-issue. If you have a 200 GB > drive, wasting 5 or 10 GB is not a problem. The real issue is just the > principle. To a lot of people this is the more important issue at hand. > I'm sometimes a bit of a purist so I fall into that category as well. > > It's still a very valid point that must be taken into account somehow.
Thanks to the fact that LFS is installed on the ext3 filesystem now, this is not an issue at all. Just, while installing a distro, allocate the partitions so that the future LFS partition comes first (or second, if you want a separate /boot) and gets formatted with ext3. Then build LFS, boot into it, remove the distro partition, and resize the LFS partition online with resize2fs. It works and the end result is just one big LFS partition. As for your inability to use the LiveCD in the past on Intel motherboards, that was due to linux-2.6.16 (i.e., too old kernel). In order to use LFS, you would have to update the kernel. But that's a deviation from the book - i.e., the book was bad in the first place, because there was no stable release with a kernel suitable for your computers. Release stable LFS more often in order to avoid that in the future :) -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
