Maybe the way the LiveCD was produced was too complicated. It was seen
as a separate project which had its own approaches.
There is another way which I use with Secure-SLinux:
I have a script which automatically creates a bootable cd image from any
linux distribution current installed.
Basical
Hendrik Hoeth пишет:
> Thus spake Alexander E. Patrakov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> If you want to help, here is a conceptually simple, but long and
>> boring task for you. Draw a tree of dependencies between packages on
>> the current full CD in dia or anything else that can be easily
>> converted
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 22:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
> ...
>
> What adding a well researched and well documented PM does to the book
> is enhancement of that understanding to include management of the
> resulting system, and possibly automation of certain dreary and
> repetitive parts of the b
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:19:48 +0300
Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2008 10:35, TheOldFellow wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:56 +0300
> > Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:17:45 -0600
R. Quenett<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:07 TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> " provided
> " the educational stuff is retained.
>
> But /what/ educational stuff?
R,
I think I almost agree with you. The big issue here is whether or
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:07 TheOldFellow wrote:
" provided
" the educational stuff is retained.
But /what/ educational stuff? The LFS slogan is your distro - your
rules but the way the educational stuff in lfs works seems to me to
more often resemble YOUR education - OUR choices
Selon Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
>
> IMO, shifting to some 'package management' also shift LFS to econiche
> already thick with 'normal' distibutions. But in this econiche it
> may lost 'educational' and 'basic kit' features. I'm fears that addition
> of package management will kill
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> I'm still at the office so I'll elaborate on this later, but to keep the
> momentum going I can at least summarize my thoughts. They are not
> finished concrete thoughts yet, just possibilities. They aren't even
> viable yet with our current resources. Call them pipe dr
On Wednesday 27 February 2008 10:35, TheOldFellow wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:56 +0300
> Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:57:56 +0300
Petr Ovtchenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for
> > which I would vote), then many of the difficulties of maintaining the
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:06:09 -0800
"J. Greenlees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:29:43 -0700
> > Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> True, LFS isn't targeted to those people
> >
> > It's always intrigued me to wonder: 'what if LFS was
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:00:40 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/27, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > True nuff, but we also say: If you stick to the book you'll build a
> > working system. That's the LFS guarantee. But if you can't be the
> > guy that makes
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:37, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> ...
>
> For instance, if the answer to that included a package manager (for
> which I would vote), then many of the difficulties of maintaining the
> LiveCD go away.
Well, do you have answer for: assuming package management, what
the key
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:00:01 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The premise is simple actually. It's not a paradigm shift. We've all
> talked about it over and over again, rehashed it to death why it can't
> be done: combine our various projects.
Great idea, makes best use of
TheOldFellow wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:29:43 -0700
> Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> True, LFS isn't targeted to those people
>
> It's always intrigued me to wonder: 'what if LFS was targeted at
> Windows users?' or, 'how would a grade school kid build a linux
> system?'
>
2008/2/27, TheOldFellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The way package management is handled is also something we should learn
> > from. PM is allowed for, even encourages, but is not required. I feel
> > this is an important point. PM should not be mandated, users should be
> > able to choose a p
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:29:43 -0700
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, LFS isn't targeted to those people
It's always intrigued me to wonder: 'what if LFS was targeted at
Windows users?' or, 'how would a grade school kid build a linux
system?'
Richard.
--
http://linuxfromscratch
2008/2/27, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Without a better ALFS integration, people are going to find themselves
> unable to use LFS in production on more than one computer. I could not
> see myself running vanilla LFS on the servers I maintain at work. One is
> doable but not even ful
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:07:15 -0600
Robert Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 12:37:50 pm TheOldFellow wrote:
> >
> > My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method,
> > AND have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of
> > managing u
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Gerard Beekmans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If someone who had just encountered a PC 2 weeks ago stumbled onto LFS,
> > managed to work their way through it and came out the other end
> > successful, I'd applaud them! Sure, they wouldn't have approached LFS
>
>
> Well this certainly is taking the discussion to the next level. I'm
> interested in hearing more about possibilities and like you am anxious
> to hear what Gerard has in mind.
I'm still at the office so I'll elaborate on this later, but to keep the
momentum going I can at least summarize my t
Hi all,
Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2008 15:49:06 schrieb Jeremy Huntwork:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> etc.pp...
Before adding another comment, i'd like to pay tribute to Jeremy for having
the courage to ask such somehow blasphemous questions. This is what has
generated a quite intensive discussi
> If someone who had just encountered a PC 2 weeks ago stumbled onto LFS,
> managed to work their way through it and came out the other end
> successful, I'd applaud them! Sure, they wouldn't have approached LFS
Maybe it wasn't meant entirely serious but there have been a few people
over the y
TheOldFellow wrote:
> My feeling is that LFS-NG should use the new DIY-Linux build method, AND
> have a Package Management system, AND have a defined way of managing
> updates. THEN, I think ALFS and BLFS should use the chosen PM.
Well this certainly is taking the discussion to the next level. I'
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:49:06 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> > couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> > degrading the quality of LFS)
> >
> >
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> So we see at least two non-empty camps. One wants a strictly minimal CD, and
> one
> wants packages beyond it. The most "democratic" solution would be to make two
> CDs (and that's, in fact, the origin of the talks about package management),
> but
> we don't have
Hendrik Hoeth wrote:
> Before I comment on the suggestions below, I should say a few words
> about how I personally use the CD.
Thanks, this information is very valuable.
> Now to the suggestions:
>
>> * Go back to the drawing board, so to speak. Start a new CD from
>> scratch that is minimal
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Please subtract the number that want to use the LiveCD to cover LFS bugs,
> don't
> realize the inherent incompatibility of LFS with 64-bit hosts (IMHO, the fact
> that LFS doesn't mention it counts as a bug), or don't know how to apt-get
> install build-essential
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
~snip~
>
> I could let this thread continue for some more time, but I get the
> impression that the ratio of votes will continue approximately the same.
as with the last time this subject came up :)
seems that while majority like the livecd project, getting more support
is
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 20 people expressed their appreciation for the CD, more than half voting
> to keep the project around.
Please subtract the number that want to use the LiveCD to cover LFS bugs, don't
realize the inherent incompatibility of LFS with 64-bit hosts (IMHO, the fact
that LFS
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> * Does the community still want the LiveCD project? (Consider that a
> couple of the arguments above imply that the LFS LiveCD by its nature is
> degrading the quality of LFS)
>
> * If so, is the community prepared to lend help in keeping it alive?
Thank you all for you
My 2 cents is going to have to go towards keeping the LiveCD. I find
it very useful to use for building LFS on target systems that don't already
have a Linux distro installed. Several have suggested that a liveCD
from a different distro could be used but I suspect finding one with all of
the deve
Selon "Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/2/25, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I grant that it is a convenience to start from a system that
> > you know has worked for others in building LFS, instead of perhaps
> > trudging through setting up another distro.
>
> The po
2008/2/26, J. Greenlees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This file, created with touch on my 64bit system.
> everything on the system, from local up set to.
> UTF-8
Yes, this file is UTF-8 encoded - but only because it is also
ASCII-encoded, i.e. doesn't contain any accented characters. So this
is not a v
2008/2/25, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I grant that it is a convenience to start from a system that
> you know has worked for others in building LFS, instead of perhaps
> trudging through setting up another distro.
The point is that the LFS target audience is already familiar with
an
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 2008/2/25, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Here is a problem: in order to support both accessibility (for blind
> users) and UTF-8 at the same time, the CD has to boot into GNOME and
> start Orca. There is no console-based solution that understands UTF-8.
2008/2/25, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The CD itself
> still does some filtering in that it drops you splat onto a command
> prompt. If you don't know how to configure a Linux system (or at least,
> open up a file to read it on the command line and follow instructions
> therein) you
> suitable for your computers. Release stable LFS more often in order to avoid
> that in the future :)
Touche ;)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> The LiveCD exists as standing proof that the LFS book is
>> sound and produces a working system.
>
> Here I disagree. Because of numerous deviations and wagons of extras, it
> proves
> nothing. Here is a counterexample:
> http://www.l
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Whatever the starting point, the fact is that in such cases I don't want
> to have to install a Linux system just so I can install LFS on the same
> machine. That way I waste partition space. Maybe the space can be
> repurposed later on (as a /home partition when all is
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The LiveCD exists as standing proof that the LFS book is
> sound and produces a working system.
Here I disagree. Because of numerous deviations and wagons of extras, it proves
nothing. Here is a counterexample:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2007
Hugo Grauls wrote:
> Without the LiveCD I would never have been able to get LFS6.2 up and
> running. Biggest worry is to have the right basic tools at hand to build
> from scratch, i.e. the adequate releases of GCC, linker, header files
> etc ...
Knowing what software to install is one of the p
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3)
Everybody brought up valid points, as usual. Here's my two cents worth.
Instead of placing myself in the shoes of an average user, let me come
at this from a personal point of view - a nine year old LFS old timer.
Over the years I have found the LiveCD helpful.
If I'm going to install LFS on a
Is it possible to integrate alfs with livecd, at least for the base core of
the livecd?
robert
pgpIZknrSok7F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> we can look into updating it when a change makes it necessary.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't work. Such change may be artificially delayed to the last
> moment before the release (as it was the case with ata_piix pretending to
> pick
> up suppor
> > It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> > killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
> >
> > 1) It is currently unmaintained
> > 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure
> > a Linux system
> > 3) It leads to less testing from o
On Monday 25 February 2008 10:37, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to
t;
To: "Development of LFS LiveCD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "LFS Developers Mailinglist" ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "BLFS Development List"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: LiveCD or No LiveCD?
>
Selon Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
To build IPCop for everyone, we made a different solution in place than a LiveCD
that is simplier.
We have
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Howard_apfc6 wrote:
>> - Seems like the ultimate build platform for newbs.
>
> That's exactly what I am against. LiveCD users create 90% of support
> requests.
> Noobs (not to be confused with newbs) should be filtered out, e.g., by
> telling
> them to install an
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
I'd agree with that. It's a fact: bugs will happen. Obviously it
stinks if someone tries boot and their hard drive isn't detected, but
the LiveCD does work for a lot of people. I don't
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> It may be
> easier to start from scratch instead of "updating" this quirky CD.
If we were to go back and start from scratch for the next CD, I would
start with an _absolutely_ minimal CD and get rid of nearly all of the
BLFS packages) so that we could focus on gene
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy your argument. How often would the above
> problem arise?
It did happen. Look how I had to delay the release of a stable CD due to a
single bug about Intel IDE and SATA controllers. I have received only five
replies (counting a even personal blog
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> we can look into updating it when a change makes it necessary.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't work. Such change may be artificially delayed to the last
> moment before the release (as it was the case with ata_piix pretending to
> pick
> up suppor
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> we can look into updating it when a change makes it necessary.
Sorry, this doesn't work. Such change may be artificially delayed to the last
moment before the release (as it was the case with ata_piix pretending to pick
up support for intel IDE controllers but actually fail
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote (somewhat reordered):
>
>> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it. A live
>> CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. For someone to
>> use it, with a more current version of LFS, they will just need t
Bruce Dubbs wrote (somewhat reordered):
> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it. A live
> CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. For someone to
> use it, with a more current version of LFS, they will just need to download
> the sources separately.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think we should just leave the project as quiescent, not kill it. A
> live CD is useful, but it doesn't have to be completely current. Just
> leave it alone for now and we can look into updating it when a change
> makes it necessary. For someone to use it, with a more curr
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
> killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
>
> 1) It is currently unmaintained
> 2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
> Linux system
> 3
Hello Everyone,
It has recently been suggested to me that the LFS LiveCD project be
killed. The main arguments for this are, essentially:
1) It is currently unmaintained
2) It removes the essential prerequisite of being able to configure a
Linux system
3) It leads to less testing from other hos
61 matches
Mail list logo
