Alexey Orishko wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Simon Geard <[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah... it's whatever the current stable kernel was when that version of
the book was released. It wouldn't make much sense for a project like
LFS to stick to the long-term-support releases, since unless there's
good reason not to, LFS tends to stay current with *everything*.
For private use and just for fun, one can even use LFS with linux-next.
However, if building commercial system based on LFS it's preferable to
have bug fixes for a couple of years guaranteed and avoid kernel
upgrade. For example, I had to pick to 3.12.x coz it was the latest
long-term release last March.
Anyway, using something like log-term kernel release in the book is nice,
but not necessary if kernel version can be changed during LFS build.
The kernel can be changed any time. I do it often.
For instance, I have one system:
$ cat /etc/lfs-release
LFS-7.5-rc1
That was originally built with 3.13.3, but now is running 3.16.1.
$ ls /boot/v* -1v
/boot/vmlinuz-3.8.3-lfs-7.3
/boot/vmlinuz-3.10.4-20130803
/boot/vmlinuz-3.13.1-7.5-dev
/boot/vmlinuz-3.13.3-7.5-rc1
/boot/vmlinuz-3.13.6-lfs-combined
/boot/vmlinuz-3.16
/boot/vmlinuz-3.16.1
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
