Proposal for new (sub)branches: (BSFS - HPFS - LLHFS)

Hi All, As I followed this list a couple of month now, I would like to make a proposal for the LFS branch. When checking all the main topic in the list, my conclusion is to make a clean devision of the main problems/topics in the future. 1) BSFS - Bootstrapping From Scratch sub-branch 2) HPFS -

Re: Adding newer headers to llh (Was Re: merging udev_update branch)

Hi All, as for educational purpose I think I would be good to use an original kernel and then apply the header script. This shows that there is some magic around that stuff. Releasing "only" a package is only useful for advanced users I think. regards Bernd Jim Gifford wrote: > Another option

Headers Sanitation Script Ready for Usage?

Hi All, Next week I will need to build a new system from scratch, so my question: Are the linux-headers-2.6.16.1.tar.bz2 ready for embedded strong usage? regards Bernd -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above i

Linux-Libc-Headers sanitisation with Gentoo

Hi all, I recently searched in the Gentoo repository for that stuff. Looks nice. Why dont we adopt this to our needs? regards Bernd BTW: Patch attached Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Best Regards Dipl. Inf. (FH) Bernd Feldmeier Embedded Software/BIOS development Kontron Embedded Computers G

Linux-Libc-Headers reference repositories/approach

Hi all, I am looking for some scripts for kernel header sanitization to examine other approaches. Can someone tell me where to get these like gentoo ones etc ... BTW: why not to work together with e.g. gentoo group? Makes no sense to me that every party makes its one way for this not easy st

svn_LFS ChangeLog

Hi all, where is the LFS-svn ChangeLog gone? regards -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page

AW: AW: Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6

Randy McMurchy Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 17:01 An: LFS Developers Mailinglist Betreff: Re: AW: Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6 Feldmeier Bernd wrote these words on 12/21/05 09:44 CST: > absolutely not against the goal of LFS, > because pointing out

AW: AW: Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 16:49 An: LFS Developers Mailinglist Betreff: Re: AW: Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6 Feldmeier Bernd wrote: > Hi, > Well, Archaic as subjected before > we could discuss that. > > I think it is > absolutely not a

AW: Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote: > > This could really lead to a clean target rootfs approach > without the need of any devel tools ... Which would be completely against the stated goal of LFS. -- Archaic Want control, education, and security

Community discussion: including any devel-tools in LFS Chap. 6

Hi all, as asked before, why dont we devide chapter 6 packages into -- essential / devel (optional) packages?? The devel packages could be a sub chapter of LFS chap 6 and marked as optional install. packages e.g. gcc, perl ... Doing so we can use the temp self hosted chroot chap 5 toolchain/sys

From Where to start Building Binaries

Hi all, Well, if have a little bit different question. As I dont want to install any development tools in chapter 6 final LFS to keep the rootfs small for embedded purpose, is it okay to always use the /tools toolchain in temp chroot system for e.g. BLFS creation?? l also need to change the PAT

AW: More control...hint integration discussion

Hi guys, I think the most elegant way for a fake root is really the unionfs way. You don't need to change any line in LFS doc, only a few words and requirements at the beginning. This should be discussed. regards - Bernd -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PR

Using Linux-Libc-Headers-2.6.x.y + latest kernel version (e.g. 2. 6.14.x)

Hello guys, I created a LFS 6.1.1 test system. But is there a problem if I use the latest kernel version ? Because Using Linux-Libc-Headers version and latest kernel version differs? regards Bernd -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/fa

new branch proposal: ELFS (embedded linux from scratch)

Hello, as there is already a very nice hint about implementing uclibc and creating a smaller lfs , the best way would be to collect all this stuff to an new elfs branch (embedded linux from scratch). maybe busybox as default + glibc or uclibc or dietlibc as an option depending on the desired ima

LFS 6.1

Hi guys, good work so far .. Well I think you should wait one more week and include the latest kernel 2.6.12 and headers available now. Also you may include binutils 2.16.1 as it is already in svn and gcc 3.4.4 This would be a good step for final 6.1 cYa Bernd Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Bes