Hello, Some newbies get caught by our advertisement (which might be true for older versions of LFS, but is untested as of LFS-6.3):
> It is not difficult to build an LFS system of less than 100 megabytes (MB), > which is substantially smaller than the majority of existing installations. > Does this still sound like a lot of space? A few of us have been working on > creating a very small embedded LFS system. We successfully built a system > that was specialized to run the Apache web server with approximately 8MB of > disk space used. Further stripping could bring this down to 5 MB or less. Try > that with a regular distribution! This is only one of the many benefits of > designing your own Linux implementation. ...and attempt to build LFS on their slow 586-class computers with only 16 MB of RAM. This is obviously a waste of time, both for them and for us. Additionally, the mentioned 100 MB system obviously contains significant deviations from the book and thus cannot be counted as LFS. P.S. I accept the challenge to "try that with a regular distribution". Proposal: 1) Remove this advertisement. 2) List hardware requirements (CPU, RAM, hard disk space) on the same page as software host requirements, or immediately before it. These requirements should be set so that the total build time (including all testsuites) is less than 8 hours, and that the build process never needs to get into swap (the worst case seems to be Chapter 5 gcc Pass1 when starting from a host that is based on gcc-3.3). 3) When package management enters the book, include a procedure for building packages for a lower CPU (basically, import config.site from the LiveCD and adjust toolchain and perl configure arguments as done there) and transferring LFS and subsequent packages to a different machine. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
