I am for sure interested in any of the changes you have made. Especially if there are any errors in the book. I am trudging through jhalfs with my edited version trying to get everything to flow completely automated. I do however agree with Robert Connolly that we should probably target the 2.4 kernel branch. I agree because 2.4 has a more solid track record, not to mention the seeminlgy experimental state of a lot of components 2.6 has added. I am running a few 2.6 based HLFS boxes as production servers, and don't have any issue with them. So admittedly it is more of a precautionary measure than a necessary one. I am sure others on the list can come up with arguments for either direction.
My edited book is still a work in progress due to the fact that I actually want to be able to run jhalfs walk away, and come back to a completed run before I call it ready for testing. But I could post what changes I have made on one of my servers whenever I get home later tonight. To be honest SVN-20060717 works pretty much as is from my experience if you want to build a system based on linux 2.6. But still I am definately interested in seeing the changes you have made. Sebastian Faulborn wrote: > I have already developed a pretty stable HLFS (ie. I have not found a > bug yet...). > > Have a look at http://www.secure-slinux.org. > > Basically it is based on HLFS SVN-20060717 with kernel updated to > 2.6.17.8 and grsecurity > updated to 2.1.9-2.6.17.8. > > There are a few bugs fixed in the book. It would be a matter of a few > hours to list them here in > the mailing list. > > It has a lot of features added and lots of packages from BLFS run on > it with no problem at all, > including XOrg, XFCE, Firefox, postfix, fcron, etc. Of course for a > base HLFS we don't need > those packages. > > A slightly older version (however with little change) has been running > for over half a year on > a production server. No problems either. > > If there is any interest, I could post those changes! > > Sebastian Faulborn > > > >> >> Betreff: >> Re: Status of HLFS project >> Von: >> Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Datum: >> Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:25:24 -0400 >> An: >> Hardened LFS Development List <[email protected]> >> >> >> Great :-) I can't wait to see. >> >> robert >> >> On Tuesday 19 September 2006 17:37, Robert Baker wrote: >> >> >>> Well I have about the same schedule as you Robert, but I am >>> willing to >>> throw my hat in the ring to help maintain HLFS-Stable. I have a big >>> interest in seeing that we can work out a hardened system capable of >>> being >>> used for stable server environments. I think that starting another >>> branch >>> for Stable is exactly what needs to happen. I am more than willing >>> to sink >>> a good 10-20 hrs a week into maintaining, and I have allready begun >>> working >>> on a branch of the SVN-20060717 build of HLFS. I am taking your >>> suggestions >>> at face value, and making the required adaptations to work from a more >>> stable package set. I will have my edited HLFS-Book ready for review >>> sometime this weekend time permitting. >>> >>> Hopefully we can get the ball rolling here, and I would love to help >>> out >>> with what time I have to do so. >>> >>> Robert Baker >>> >>> > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses courtesy of Netslyder, Inc.(http://www.netslyder.net)] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
