I wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: >>> 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. >> >> The above is still true, but perhaps there should be a modification: >> >> "It is not difficult to modify a standard LFS system to use less than >> 100 megabytes (MB)..." > > Yes, this is acceptable.
After some thought, I still can't come with a complete, correct and meaningful paragraph. The problem is that, while the statements about achievable sizes are true, it is technically incorrect to show them as advantages of LFS. In fact, binary distros are more suitable to such reduction, because they (unlike LFS) survive removal of gcc painlessly. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
