I'm a laid off engineer on a zero income budget, so $$$ are a prime
consideration. I bought a basic system for $1 at at swap meet. It
had no hard drive, and a burnt out power supply, and only 64M of RAM.
I've added another 128M of RAM from a junker, and transplanted a PS
from another machine, and a
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Does the build partition really need to be 10G?
For LFS alone, no. A few years ago we checked it and determined the
minimum size would be 1.3G, but that has probably grown. I've not
tested it, but I suspect that you can get by with 2G fairly easily, but
that doesn't ac
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
> I'm a laid off engineer on a zero income budget, so $$$ are a prime
> consideration. I bought a basic system for $1 at at swap meet. It
> had no hard drive, and a burnt out power supply, and only 64M of RAM.
> I've added another 128M of RAM from a junker, an
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
>> Here's my initial thoughts...
>>
>> prtn sizemount point
>> ---
>> hda1 100M/boot
>> hda2 10G / (main)
>> hda3 10G / (build)
>> hda5 20G /home
>>
>
> If you've only got 128
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty
wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Here's my initial thoughts...
>>>
>>> prtn size mount point
>>> ---
>>> hda1 100M /boot
>>> hda2 10G / (main)
>>> hda3 10G
Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty
> wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> [...]
>>
Here's my initial thoughts...
prtn sizemount point
---
hda1 100M/boot
hda2 10
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty
>> wrote:
>>> Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
> Here's my initial thoughts...
>
> prtn size mount point
>>
On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
>> pointing at /home/boot
>
> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
> there something I don't know?
I keep my kernel in /home/boot, alo
stosss wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty
> wrote:
>> I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't
>> want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is
>> a reasonable compromise. Each partition then has /swap as a symbolic
>> link, to make
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>
>>> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
>>> pointing at /home/boot
>> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
>> there something I don't know?
>
> I ke
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> stosss wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty
>> wrote:
>>> I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't
>>> want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is
>>> a reasonable compromise.
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>>
I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
pointing at /home/boot
>>> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
>>> there some
stosss wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Mike McCarty
> wrote:
>> stosss wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty
>>> wrote:
>> If I understand you, that carves 1G out of each of the system
>> partitions.
>
> If the swap file is on the / partition how does it take up spac
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Mike, I don't understand your dislike for separate /boot and swap
> partitions. They are not large and really don't need to change once set
> up properly.
I don't dislike a separate /boot partition. I like that, and I like
it near the beginning of the disc.
I don't like
Mike McCarty wrote:
> I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
> resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
> is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
Interesting. I've never had to resize a swap partition. I generally
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
>>> pointing at /home/boot
>>>
>> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
>> there something
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>
>> I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
>> resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
>> is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
>>
>
> Interesting. I've never had
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
>> resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
>> is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
>
> Interesting. I've never had to resize a
Baho Utot wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I
>> boot into one
>> LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use
>> grub to rewrite
>> the MBR
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> I don't understand how that hel
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
> to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
> GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which
> would be nice.
5Gb should be fine -
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
>> to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
>> GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which
>> would be nic
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
[putolin]
I use a boot partition and this layout
>> $ ls /boot
>> LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
>>
>
> If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point,
> then one needs to modify the MBR to point to
On 05/03/10 00:11, Baho Utot wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I
>> boot into one
>> LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use
>> grub to rewrite
>> the MBR
>>
> I don't understand how that h
Baho Utot wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
> [putolin]
>
> I use a boot partition and this layout
>>> $ ls /boot
>>> LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
>>>
>> If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point,
>> then one needs t
It's all a matter of taste.
You could put an extra buck to get an other disk on the secondary ide
controller.
hda 40g
hdb cdrom
hdc 40g (might be something else)
hdd cdrom
With only 192mb RAM and LFS in mind, you'll need lots of swap; the magnitude
being around 2.5gb. For this purpose, the parti
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>
>> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>>
>> [putolin]
>>
>> I use a boot partition and this layout
>>
$ ls /boot
LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
>>> If /boot
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >> Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
> >> to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
> >> GNOME or KDE? I
On 06/03/10 05:10, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Great! However, is that the max that was needed during the build?
>
> No idea, but if that full installation comes in at 3.6Gb, it's unlikely
> that any single package would have pushed it over 5Gb dur
28 matches
Mail list logo
