Slashdot Mirror


Beyond Linux From Scratch 1.0 Released

An anonymous reader writes "DistroWatch reports about the 1.0 release of Beyond Linux From Scratch (BLFS), a subproject of Linux From Scratch: 'The BLFS Development team is proud to announce the release of BLFS 1.0. With this release, you can take your LFS 4.1 base beyond a development system. It can be a desktop, a firewall, a multimedia player/editor, an Apache web server or all of the above. You install only what you need. Your Distro. Your Rules. Enjoy.'" Choose the closest mirror...

39 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. How different from Gentoo? by mattbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've recently been impressed by Gentoo Linux which lets you build your system from a BSD-style ports system: the whole thing held together by a bunch of Python scripts, but otherwise your build options, tools and so on are your own choice. If that's not Linux From Scratch I'm not sure what is :-)

    Having said that, I'm not always convinced that the way to a reliable server setup is to build everything yourself, but both LFS and Gentoo look good for the desktop.

    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
    1. Re:How different from Gentoo? by kinnell · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The difference is that with gentoo, you don't learn much because most things are automated. Yes, gentoo is probably a much better option for someone who just wants a customised linux distribution. LFS, though, is an outstanding educational tool, for one thing, and an invaluable resource if you want to produce a linux distribution which is radically different from the norm in any way.

      If you want to learn about how and why a linux distribution is put together, LFS is the way.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:How different from Gentoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's actually very different from Gentoo. There's
      a whole host of choices you can make when building
      a package from source. Most of these are made for
      you in the ports setup.

      For instance, I may prefer *not* to have GNU
      gettext linked into everything. Or perhaps I want
      every installed program in /bin & /sbin to be
      statically linked so I can recover if my
      libraries somehow get hosed.

      Don't get me wrong, Gentoo is good for eeking
      performance out of your dist. But you don't
      get exposed to nearly as many design decisions
      as you do when building from scratch. I recommend
      that anyone serious about *nix admin try it at
      least once.

      On your last point, I wholeheartedly agree.

      When you upgrade/install a package from source
      on a production system, you're basically trusting
      that the creator of the package you're installing
      has thouroughly tested it. This usually is not
      the case. When you install a package from your
      vendor, they've at least done some basic testing.

    3. Re:How different from Gentoo? by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux from Scratch is actually quite a bit different from Gentoo. Gentoo provides you with executable code, you answer some questions and you have a new install, although the process takes longer and is more configurable than say, downloading pre-built packages. Linux from Scratch, last time I checked, provides you with a document. Thats it. No packages. First you create and format your partitions (by hand, using fdsck and mkfs). Then you create your filesystem, (mkdir /usr /var /etc.....), then compile statically linked versions of them minimum utilities needed to boot and compile, then reboot, recompile libraries and dynamically linked versions, then start compiling the rest of your system software. All by hand. And you have to create your own init scripts (although examples are provided).

      Why would you want to do this? It's an excellent way to learn about Linux. You learn exactly what components make up your system, get a pretty good idea how they interact, etc.

      Would you want to run this on a system you actually use? Probably not. It's a pain in the ass. Everything has to be compiled from scratch. No package system to minimize cruft build-up. Every security patch has to be downloaded and applied by hand. It's very time consuming.

      --
      Why?
    4. Re:How different from Gentoo? by gclef · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, in other words, you only use this if you want to claim to be l33ter than thou...anyone with an actual life uses Gentoo.

      Okay, I can see that.

    5. Re:How different from Gentoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So, in other words, you only use this if you want to claim to be l33ter than thou...anyone with an actual life uses Gentoo.

      People with actual lives use Mandrake or Red Hat. People with l33t tendancies but an aversion to work use Gentoo. People who want to learn stuff use LFS.

    6. Re:How different from Gentoo? by horza · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gentoo is very simple to install. The instructions are clear and easy to follow. It teaches you a lot about Linux, not as much as LFS but enough to fascinate most techies without being *too* much like hard work.

      The real selling point of Gentoo is the portage system. Want to try a new application? Type "emerge appname", and go have a coffee whilst it fetches the sources, compiles it optimised for your system, and then configures and installs it all for you. Want to update every application on your computer to the newest version? Type "emerge -u world".

      It really is the most easy to maintain system I have ever used, and the only distro where installing and updating software is simpler than Windows. Whilst both Gentoo and LFS let you get a good look under the hood, the difference (as parent poster points out) in maintaining the systems is a gulf apart.

      Phillip.

    7. Re:How different from Gentoo? by rifter · · Score: 3, Informative

      All of the source based distributions are based on LFS. he whole point of LFS was to teach you how to make your own distribution. The problem was in order to teach people how to make a distribution, it was necessary to make a reference distribution (well, they referenced packages in the LFS-HOWTO, and ended up making the versions they used in making the HOWTO available, so by default this becomes a distro). It kind of grew from there. Gentoo/SourceMage/Sourcerer/etc take the LFS packages and add scripts that automate the download/compile and an installer, among other things.

      So in essence the main reason to go through the LFS and such is to learn more about how Linux works and how to make your own distro (or better understand why your distro does things the way they do). Sourcemage is my current favorite distribution, but I have ordered the new LFS book because I want to learn more. (the Howto, sources, and I think even the book are also available online).

    8. Re:How different from Gentoo? by jdavidb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gentoo Linux is a distro. LFS is a "Make your own distro" HOWTO.

      Suppose there were no Gentoo, and you wanted to make your own distro with the design goals of Gentoo. You'd install some other distro like RedHat or Debian (or perhaps even a completely different OS; anyone ever bootstrap Linux from FreeDOS?) and slowly compile your own packages. You might choose to use rpm, dpkg, your own, or no packaging system. You'd have a bit of dependency hell while trying to figure out what order to compile everything in (and make sure that you didn't wind up with library dependencies on the original distro). Finally, you'd want to repeat the process from within your new distro; after all, you want it to be self-hosting rather than having to install RedHat each time you build a new version.

      Mastering LFS trains you to do all this. Does everyone need to know how to do this? No. Do we really need any new distros? Probably not. But people who have said, "Yes we do" have often brought us much better systems (like your beloved Gentoo). Plus, I found learning this material to be intensely interesting and right up my alley.

  2. It is not a distro by AccUser · · Score: 5, Informative

    Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] is not a disto, but a set of instructions for building a GNU/Linux system from little more than an existing distro. The Beyond Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] project builds on this tradition, providing instructions for installing a number of other packages.

    Having said that, I would recommend that anyone serious about furthering their knowledge of Linux, and at least 750MB of free hard disk space should give it a go. I got into Linux back in '93, and knew quite a lot. Then I stumbled across Linux From Scratch (LFS) - I didn't realise how much I didn't know until finishing my first complete build.

    I now run an number of LFS-based systems at home and at work, and have never looked back.

    BTW, I am typing this on my Gentoo [gentoo.org], 1.4_rc4 build. :-)

    --

    Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

  3. LFS is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... to learn a lot about linux.

    Thx to all the guys (and girls) who contributed to LFS

    Grtz

  4. Re:I think I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    LFS, for example, does not tell you how to install X windows from the source.

    BLFS tells you about major packages and their dependencies.

  5. predates gentoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    LFS has been around for a lot longer than Gentoo, and is a different approach. Rather than hold your hand and let all the scripts do the work, LFS tells you how to do it and gives you commands but also the options for how to do it. It is more a teach-yourself-linux distro, in that you learn about interdependencies, the order which certain packages must be installed, and what each package does. Every single file created on the system can be accounted for this way. LFS is just the base system, and BLFS is seen as an extension of the base system, providing the means to customize a functional base linux system with only thoe applications you want! A faster and cleaner system I have not found anywhere! (not even gentoo, sorry! :-P)

  6. LFS is not Gentoo by jgardn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've installed LFS before. LFS is just the instructions on how to install Linux from scratch (hence the name, Linux From Scratch). They supply a few pieces of software conveniently in one place so you don't have to spend hours finding it on your own and figuring out what version goes with what. It is just enough to get an OS that works, but not enough to do much except put more software on it.

    BLFS is a collection of instructions for installing various bits of popular software like Gnome, KDE, Mozilla, and more.

    I would like to point out that LFS is not Gentoo. LFS is literally Linux From Scratch. There are no installation scripts. There are no system management tools. There is no pretty interface, or simple instructions. It is a book, not a piece of software.

    You literally go through each piece of software and configure, compile, and install it. It is pretty cool because they describe what each piece of software is for, and you can see how one piece builds on another. You'll certainly never look at your system the same again, because you'll know what each bit does.

    I wouldn't suggest trying LFS unless you are interested in what exactly goes on under the hood, or you are building your own distro from scratch.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  7. The real benefit of LFS and Gentoo... by MaxBlue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is that it is a good learning experiance.

    When I first started using Linux I did the usual, RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, blah blah blah. I ran the nice little installer, opened my desktop, ran a few programs, but I couldn't tell you what was where or how to effectively fix broke things.

    Then I tried Gentoo and now I feel like I have learned something about Linux. I found out where configuration files went because I had to. I learned how to compile the kernal because I had to. I learned how to install freaking network cards because I had to.

    I don't know if my machine is "leaner and meaner" but you know, I had a lot more fun doing building it.

    --
    RTFM? FTFM!!
    1. Re:The real benefit of LFS and Gentoo... by ookaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do not think that the good learning experience is the real benefit of LFS. I think it's the incentive. I installed my first LFS (a pre 3.0) for two reasons :
      - learning
      - there was no distro with what I needed !
      I have had a hard time with distros. I started with Linux on 1999 only, and for 2 years, I stumbled upon a lot of issues, only to see that they were solved already, but not in distros.
      So I installed my first LFS near the end of 2000. Yes, the worst thing about LFS is that it's time consuming. Actually, that's one of the reasons that my desktop is a bi-pro right now (for fast compilations :) ).
      Well, going back to the real benefit of LFS : the perfect desktop. For example, until two months ago, I always wondered why people said X was slow. Even on my old Athlon 500 (my first LFS system), it was really fast, with Gnome 1 and KDE 2. I discovered that the problem was in the distros (again) as Gentoo users did not see the slowness and me neither.
      Well, it took me one week to install a complete LFS system last time, and the benefit are endless :
      - I can choose my init ! simpleinit-msb is the fastest and the easiest around to setup. Even my old PII 266 laptop boot faster than any machine with a distro installed on it (except my actual desktop). Even the gentoo system is slower (but use the same system for rc scripts).
      - I had LVM a long time ago, and it's not even there in distros.
      - When people are still whining about drag & drop between Gnome and Kde, or were whining about desktop resizing, etc., I had all of those months ago.
      - When people whine of Gnome/Kde being slow/crash prone, I experience none of these behaviours (except on the PII 266 laptop with 32 Mo, where it's slow, but does not crash ...).
      - All my users are on an LDAP server (LDAPv3 with kerberos actually), with pam for authentication/identification/..., for access on all my little network.
      - I have already switched all fonts to Bitstream ones.
      - My wife was pretty pleased with her Kde desktop with mosfet's Liquid and Noia icons.
      - I use cups since a loooong time.
      - ans so on and so on.

      And I'm no leet, I'm not even searching to be leet, I just want a good desktop, as all my family use it (we are three actually).
      If I'm so happy, that's all thanks to LFS, LFS Hints, BLFS and Freshmeat (and some work on my part too).

      Actually, anyone planning to install a LFS as his main system need a good package management. I've scripted one that works good for me, but most of it comes from a LFS hint, the one on installwatch. That's what I use, with the nuke script. This is truely the best IMHO.

  8. Great news! by QwkHyenA · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I personally did the LFS (2.4 & 3.0 ver.) serveral times one summer for the experience and was extremely impressed with the documentation that walked you through the whole thing. Problem was, after I was done, the boxes were only really suitable for servers/firewalls/routers as I had no idea what was needed to install X Windows and other things like gnome & KDE (far more dependent on libraries and I had no clue where to start!) Now, I can hand tailor my own desktop client systems and take LFS to the next step! Thanks BLFS team!

    BTW, if you want to do the LFS part, I'd expect it to take a few weeks for a novice linux user (that's about what I averaged all three times.)

    --
    LFS. Have you built your system today?
    1. Re:Great news! by samhalliday · · Score: 2, Funny
      err... may i suggest `man rm` to you? (after you check out `tar --help` of course...) becuase that is effectively what redhat's package management is doing. you dont need gcc lying around if you dont use anything else! (ok, granted you probably need cpp around if you install X, as it uses the cpp to preprocess a lot of its runtime configs... but cpp is tiny). you can have a web/email server running in less than 20MB; can you do THAT with redhat? (more importantly... would you want to? disk space nowadays is so cheap its not worth the hassle).

      on a more helpfull level, i point you to an absolute minimal LFS hint

  9. Very important to GNU/Linux by jocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Linux from scratch is critical to the future of GNU/linux. It stops the corporates from stealing all the limelight (yes I mean SuSE, Redhat et al) and is the ultimate counter measure to the "Linux will fragment like UNIX did" naysayers.

    For all Linux users, building from scratch is like the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, it is something that you should do at least once in your life. I for one support this and will do my bit to ensure continuing freedom.

  10. Gentoo / Slackware instead by ajalics · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For labs/installations of many machines, or people who are dolts - um I mean newbies, I always recommend whatever the local flavour of Redhat/Suse/Mandrake/whatever.

    However, for a few choice machines, machines that you spend more time with then should be legally allowed, I always recommend slackware (for a non high bandwidth connection) or gentoo (with high bandwidth). The flexibility of these last too is very rewarding for anyone who wants an uber customized Linux box.

    And especially with slackware, you gain a lot of knowledge and familiarity with how things works, and how to fix things. This knowledge pays off it's debt quickly. For example, you might have a redhat buddy that has some problems with configuration GUI X, and you just go and fix it by hand.

    LFS is interesting, but what's the big difference between it and gentoo? Just an extra step that's not very practical unless you're making your own distro.

  11. LFS Hints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Beond Linux From Scratch is a great resource for expanding an LFS system, but don't forget about the LFS hints! http://hints.linuxfromscratch.org

    There is lots of valuable information in the form of hints that is not available in BLFS

    1. Re:LFS Hints by samhalliday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      yes, but unfortunately a lot of people are concentrating on the BLFS book now and neglecting the the hints.

      i have been part of the LFS community for a few years now, just helping out on the lists and writing a few hints. The sad thing is not that BLFS exists, but that it has become more of a 'copy and paste the commands' textbook for building a system. the hints were more of a walkthrough which taught you what you were doing at each step and explained in some detail setups for larger programs. dont get me wrong, i love BLFS, but i think it has lost some of what the hints had.

      another sad thing about LFS is that the punters seem to WANT copy and paste instructions... lately i have unsubscribed from the lists because new posters are always asking FAQ questions or not checking the archives. a while ago, only those keen to learn GNU/Linux in more detail (and were not afraid of the `man` command) used LFS; nowadays we just get a bunch of kids wanting us to hold their hand while they build their own distro to increase their geek factor. and new hint subissions are all silly GNU style (configure ; make install) stuff which doesnt need documented. i personally think if you want to run LFS, you have to be prepared to write a few patch files yourself for dodgy programs, involving some level of programming experience.

      for the record, i still use LFS, i think it kicks ass, and the speed difference with any distro is VERY noticable (i have had others confirm this, its not just propoganda). but then, it is an addiction; you have to reach a stage where you say "ok, this is stable, i am not going to upgrade it anymore!" or you lose your real life.

  12. Excellent News! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is excellent news. Linux has enjoyed widespread publicity and use, but unfortunately, I think that most people who use Linux (and are new to "alternative" operating systems) are using Red Hat or one of the larger distros and don't really understand its ins-and-outs. For many people, this is perfectly acceptable because all they care about is reading their email and word processing anyway. For them, DOS 2.0 with some kind of quick GUI would be more than enough, let alone Windows XP LX SE 2010. Putting together your own distribution with step-by-step instructions will probably make anybody a better user, admin, developer, etc. And with a book to show you how to build a usable distro, you simply can't go wrong. I think I'm going to dig some junk out of my computer graveyard and try this one out tonight... it'll be a long night!

  13. Coming soon... by Hard_Code · · Score: 2, Funny

    Developments are already underway for the sequel, "Return to the Gates of LFS". "LFS 3D" is planned in Q4 2004. It is rumored "LFS: Vice City" will follow.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  14. Please have mercy on my server guys =D by HIghoS · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sigh... /. editors, I love you for causing an absurd amount of trouble for me. I thank you for promoting our projects, I just wish you guys would have contacted us before linking to the main websites.

    We've had hosting issues ever since our main server was taken off the VA network last October, and since then things have been hosted on my personal server. Anyways, I just wanted to rant little, considering i'm at the other end of this slashdotting.. (not like it's my first time, more like 8th now ;p)

    At least use the mirrors guys.. please :)

  15. Re:Hmm Sounds like.... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nice try. Slackware is God's chosen distro, as all right-thinking people will agree :-) but LFS is a lot more work.

  16. Re:I think I'm missing something by kinnell · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes it does. It's right there in the documentation

    Where exactly? In chapter 9 (hint: this is the last chapter in the book), "What now" it states:

    Now that you have finished installing your LFS system, you may be wondering "What now?". In order to answer that question, we have composed a list of resources for you.

    Beyond Linux From Scratch
    The Beyond Linux From Scratch book covers installation procedures for a wide range of software beyond the scope of the LFS Book. The BLFS project can be found at http://beyond.linuxfromscratch.org/.

    ...From which I conclude that you are a troll, and the person who modded you "insightful" is an idiot.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  17. my kinda EULA by b17bmbr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You install only what you need. Your Distro. Your Rules. Enjoy

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  18. Can we please shift PRIORITIES?! by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Instead of inventing YET ANOTHER WEB SERVER DISTRO (yes, I've been tempted too), can we please focus our efforts on the things that are wrong, broken and unusuable in EVERY DISTRO ON THE PLANET?

    Here are some suggestions for your distro-crafting efforts (no implied priorities):
    • There should be a way to say "fetch documentation for x" where x is a path name to any non-user file (and a few user files). man is the "right place" to do this, although if you wanted to take the time to re-engineer info so that it could take any program name or path name as an argument and find the right documentation AND had an initial dir.info that wasn't so geard toward "so you've installed EMACS and the GNU tools on an existing UNIX" then it might be a useable replacement for man (and info has the benefit of being a bit easier to convert into other forms like GUI-viewer, print and HTML-based representations because it's based on a more generalized markup language (texi) which is in turn based on a more powerful typesetter (\TeX). I'm a long time (15ish years) user of UNIX and UNIX-like systems, and I still want this!
    • A set of management tools for pam that runs the spectrum from adding a user to choosing a password hashing format to setting up an LDAP server based on an existing source (local files, an external database, etc). In the UNIX tradition (and for good and valid reasons that you can find by searching USENET, and I won't go into here) it should be command-line driven, but I would not complain at all about a GUI tool
    • A heirarchical installation model that allows for a /usr, /opt and /usr/local which are applied to all system paths and configurations in reverse order (e.g. default paths all start with /usr/local/bin) and which package maintainers have well defined conventions for using according to historical precident (/usr is for distribution-native packages, /opt is for third-party packages and /usr/local is for site-local items that are created and installed by the maintainer of the system). If I put GNOME3.0pre-alpha97 into my /etc/apt/sources or whatever the equivalent is, and install it, it should go into /opt so that un-installing it puts my system back where it started. If I hack my own copy of Perl and install it, it should go into /usr/local so that it's clear that this is my hacked version and not something installed from the official distribution.
    • sudo, ssh, and pam all have different views on what it means to authenticate. These views need to be merged at the distribution level into a single means of authenticating. This is a hairy problem, and may involve feeding back into all three projects, but if I don't have a password because I use a pam-based smart card and ssh-agent for remote key exchange then I can't use sudo (which requires a password). sudo is well within its rights to require periodic re-authentication, but that needs a mechansism (through support in it and the infrastructure of the os including pam and ssh) to feed that re-authentication request all the way back to my smart-card interface....
    So, if distributions are seeking to solve problems like these, great. If they're not, and they're just another way to customize Red Hat or Debian or install from source or put your files on an FTP server, then I have to ask if the authors of these tools are even scratching their own itch?!
    1. Re:Can we please shift PRIORITIES?! by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful
      surely man already does this? my man pages are valid for any command, library call or setup file on my system

      Not mine. I've tried every variant of Linux I can get my hands on. Here's an example from my system, just trying a few of the "/etc/p*" files:
      man pam_smb.conf
      man pine.conf
      man printconf.local
      man profile
      man protocols
      How do I find out what program "profile" is documented under? Granted, that's an easy one, and I already know the answer, but many people don't know what a borne shell is, much less that bash IS one.

      FreeBSD actually made a point of thise, and they were doing a good job for a while. I have no idea how that's doing at this point, though.

      You make the point that paths can be edited... well, yes, but the WHOLE system needs to know that you can have files in multiple locations. For decades now, /opt has been the correct place for third party software, and still I see distribution vendors all inventing their own ideas (Red Hat just wants everyone to install in /usr, debian made some noises in the /opt direction and then gave up in favor of the Red Hat model, the other distributions don't appear to have even thought this far ahead. It *is* a distribution's job to worry about how sofware can be added to the system in a sane way and impose those standards.

      You claim that a distribution cannot manage user authentication, but then who exactly DOES? The sudo folks say it's pam's job. The pam folks say it's ssh's job. ssh says it's sudo's job....

      In the end, it's GOT to be the distribution that sets their foot down and says "here is the way you will authenticate a user, and here is the way that you will pass authentication data around." The fact that SSH had to roll it's own was a sad result of the state of user authentication at the time, not a desirable situation. Should MY remote access program use SSH's keys or create it's own? Should I maybe have an API for that? Should that API be part of the standard suite of getpw* API calls? WHOAH NOW! That's the glibc folks!

      Packaging a distribution is about creating a working system out of the parts provided and any other glue that needs to be added, not about typing "make install" and walking away.

      On the point of what to call the system, I've never understood why people put the name of the kernel in the distribution name. It's kind of like calling a computer an IBM PC Clone....why? Why not be your own thing and put your acknowledgements in the documentation where they belong? Eh, I guess most folks don't agree with me here, so oh well....
    2. Re:Can we please shift PRIORITIES?! by rifter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your documentation problem is an interesting one, and I have to say I agree this is something useful. (I think it is rather obvious the other answerers are blinded, as many Linux contributers/users seem to be, by "what is" and "how you do it now" and are not seeing the benefit of how it could be done.

      A major problem here is the ragmentation of documentation even for a given command. A little bit in the man page, a bit in the info file, a bit in some randoom PDF, some random text files, a HOWTO, a mini-HOWTO, an Oreilly book, and some random web pages, besides a few archived emails from a list and some usenet articles, and maybe by the time you have gone through all that you will know what to do sometimes. (If not, you need to email a list).

      Of course it would be much easier to RTFM if the FM was easier to read, or get to. It would be nice if one or a couple of these places was fairly complete. To be fair, many packages do this, and it is the package's job to provide docs, but this f course leads to an inconsistency, such that some package maintainers like info, others man, and others want you to read their web site, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that it is the distro's job to fill in the cracks. And there are some examples.

      For instance, OpenBSD (yes not a Linux Distro, but everyone starts on the same foot on most packages) has decided that they will provide adequate man pages, and they will have everything documented in man pages such that you can actually use those pages, and only those pages, and get things to work. And they do it. Compare the man page for some random package/command on OpenBSD to the *very same one* on Linux (same version even) and you will see what I mean. Someone in the OpenBSD team is fixing the bloody man pages. So why can't Linux distros do it?

      Of course the extreme where every file is documented on the system is a very good one to hope for, and something to think about. Also a better doc system than man (though so far I like man best) might be helpful in this task.

      The naysayers to your problems are ignoring the fact that distributions change things all the time. It is their job to fill in the cracks and make a useable system. To their credit, I think most have done a lot of work getting things to happen their way. But as usual, there is more that could be done...

  19. Re:My easy guide to LFS by supergiovane · · Score: 2, Funny
    You get all the benefits of LFS with less headaches.

    But the benefits of LFS are the headaches!!

    --
    Signatures are for stupids.
  20. Re:Gentoo, Mandrake, Xandros and package managemen by cide1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are no packages. You download the official Tarball or gzip and extract, compile with your options, and install. It is probably the absolutely most vanilla linux their is. I have to second that it is very educational. I have built LFS twice, once about 2 years ago, and once about 4 months ago. The first time a system boots where you understand every little daemon and startup script and program and it's usefullness is very rewarding. LFS is basically an instruction book on how to build all the differant programs and libraries in the right order. At first, the GNU tool chain is built statically from a differant distro, then a jailed root is used to rebuild everything dynamically with the static toolchain, so the system is self-hosted. The book explains everything very well, and only minimal knowledge is needed. I can't emphasize enough how educational it is on Linux and Unix in general.

    --
    -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
  21. Re:Stupid Newbie Question... by EllF · · Score: 2, Informative

    Knoppix actually works quite well. You won't be able to do the lilo setup, but grub works just fine -- I'd highly reccomend it over trying to set things up with cygwin, which is sometimes a bit funky about gcc and glibc versions.

    --
    We who were living are now dying
    With a little patience
  22. Re:Gentoo, Mandrake, Xandros and package managemen by spectral · · Score: 2, Informative

    urpm[i/e/q/f/whatever] is your friend.

    urpme postfix
    To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be removed (9 MB):
    mutt-1.4.1i-1.1mdk
    postfix-2.0.6-1mdk

    Is this OK? (Y/n)

    There are graphical tools to manage thsi as well. Using straight RPM in Mandrake is like putting your nuts in a vice. There's no fucking point, and it's painful and stupid as all hell. :)

    Ok, there are times when using rpm is nice/required, but very very rarely since urpm(x) does dependency checking and automatic downloads if you have your sources set up properly.

    That being said, I like sorcerer, and use it as my primary OS. :)

  23. LFS vs Source Based Distros by Drasil · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't consider myself a guru, but 'I would say I know enough'. I've done the whole LFS/source based distro thing for a while now so here's my take on things.

    I think it's important to make a distinction between LFS and Gentoo/SGL/Sourcemage/Lunar/uPM. LFS is a book that describes the process of producing a minimal linux installation that is capable of building software. The source based distros provide scripts/tools that automate the build process for you. Which you choose is largly dependent on your needs.

    It seems from your post that you are interested in learning what makes GNU/Linux tick: what files do what, what software is required and what's bloat, and generally what goes on under the hood. For this I found that there is no substitute for LFS, it took me from Mandrake newbie to power-user in a couple of months. This was a good few years ago and at the time there was no BLFS, I feel that that actually helped me with learning the stuff. LFS held my hand through the installation of the base system, but after that I was forced to RTFM, making my own mistakes and learning from them. After 2 or 3 months I had a fully functional system with KDE, apache and a bunch of other stuff. I also had learned many times more than I did in over a year of using mandrake.

    My new shiney LFS system was a joy to behold, but it became a real pain to maintain. I found that an unacceptable portion of my time was spent updating software manually and it was effecting my productivity. This was around the same time that SGL first appeared on freshmeat. I had tinkered for a while with LFSmake but found that it wasn't flexible enough. SGL was wonderful, I traded a small amount of the total control that LFS gave me for a system that saved me 80% of the time I was spending on keeping my system up to date.

    Unfortunatley there was a bit of a storm in the SGL teacup which resulted in SGL going offline for a while and 2 forks appearing (Sourcemage and Lunar). Initially I went with Sourcemage but I found that after a while it became too unstable and as I was using it for work I couldn't have that (it may well be better now, I've not checked it out in a while). I switched to Lunar and am still using it now. It doesn't provide the same education as LFS, but once that knowledge is aquired it provides a much more efficient means of installing/maintaining your system.

    I should say that I did once try gentoo but I was put off by the complete lack of an installer. You have to jump through too many hoops (and triangles, hexagons and other polyhedra) to get the thing up and running. uPM also looks interesting but is still in a relativly eary stage of development.

    To sum it all up: LFS cannot be beaten for it's educational value, but for day-to-day use Lunar suits me best.

  24. Avoid package hell / parallel src installs (long!) by Deagol · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I understand the RPM dependency hell very well. I recently did a full, clean RedHat 9 install. I then downloaded all the source RPMs from freshrpms, mostly for the multimedia capabilities. A quick 1-line bash script went through the entire batch and attempted to build them. Of course, some needed to be built and installed before others, so about 30% failed. I installed what did build, then repeated this process several more times. The mplayer package was the worst by far.

    Anyway, I don't understand how anyone has trouble installing packages from source. You just need to partition them appropriately. I wish distributions used a similar method so they could keep parallel versions of programs and libraries installed.

    Take openssh, for example:

    My typical build of openssh requires: zlib, openssl, and tcp_wrappers.

    I use a structure I call /mfs ("My File System"). I could use /usr/local for the same thing, but a customized directory will prevent collisions in /usr/local (the usual default prefix for configure scripts).

    Under /mfs I have directories "dist" (the tarballs), "src" (where I untar and build each package), and "pkg" where I install packages.

    So I start with zlib: "./configure --prefix=/mfs/pkg/zlib/1.1.4 ; make ; make test ; make install".

    I repeat with tcp_wrappers, openssl, and finally openssh. So now I have the most current versions:

    • /mfs/pkg/zlib/1.1.4
    • /mfs/pkg/tcp_wrappers/7.6
    • /mfs/pkg/openssl/0.9.7a
    • /mfs/pkg/openssh/3.6.1p1

    It should go without saying that I configure openssh to use the zlib, openssl, and wrappers libraries under /mfs, rather than the default system libraries. To the anal purists out there, I don't do this with all libraries (such as glibc), as it would drive me insane -- but it could theoretically be done.

    Here's where it gets elegant (or convoluted, depending on your tolerance for complexity). Under each package's directory, I use a symlink from the version I wish to use on a regular basis to "std".

    So, under /mfs/pkg/openssh, I may have directories 3.6.1p1, 3.0.1p1, and 2.9.9p1. Let's say that I want to use the latest sshd, so I run "cd /mfs/pkg/openssh ; ln -s 3.6.1p1 std". I then cd back up to /mfs. I then issue "lndir pkg/openssh/std". Actually, I have a script in /mfs that automatically removes all existing links under /mfs (avoiding the "pkg" dir, for obvious reasons) then re-linking every package with a "std" link. (Note I don't use a "std" link -- and thus don't lndir -- for libraries without runable binaries). If you don't know how lndir works, check it out (it's from the XFree86 distribution, though that might not be where it originated.).

    After running lndir (or my script), I now have /mfs/{bin,etc,var,lib,sbin}. I point my sshd startup script to always use /mfs/sbin/sshd, which is actually a link to /mfs/pkg/openssh/std/sbin/sshd. Since std is a symlink to the version I wish to use, I can change to a newer or older version by simply stopping sshd, changing the "std" link to point to another version, and restarting sshd.

    The beauty is that still have other versions available to me. Say the scp provided in 3.6.1p1 has an irritating bug (not the case, but just imagine). If my normal PATH has /mfs/bin, I'll get scp v3.6.1p1, but I can fall back to running /mfs/pkg/openssh/3.0.1p1/bin/scp.

    This technique is especially valuable in multi-user systems, where libraries and applications of different versions (think compilers, for example) have dedicated users who aren't ready to upgrade.

    Sorry for the really long post, but this idea works extremely well, IMHO, and I'm surprised that no distros use a similar technique for maintaining parallel versions. If RPM used this technique, you'd never run into the case where a new app needs a newer library version, but upgrading that library isn't possible since other major applications require that specific version (such as KDE needing a specific version of libpng and libcrypt).

  25. LFS 4.1 Book by Namaseit · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just got my LFS 4.1 book in the mail a few days ago. I like it even better now that i have a hard copy of it. I just wish BLFS came in hardcopy....or maybe it does, i'll have to check.

    --
    75% of all statistics are made up!
  26. Even if not using LFS/BLFS. by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are huge benefits from this effort.

    First of all they tell you how to fetch, recompile and configure a whole lot of standard packages. Want to enhance your RH9 distribution with ALSA? head for these guys' documentation and you'll be home and dry in no time.

    Second of all this documentation covers a lot of things in a very tight format. Want to configure an anonymous CVS server? there you go.

    Finally this effort frees the whole community from the grips of the distribution vendors. If all goes to hell in a handbasket and your favourite distro turns its back on you, you can still survive, fix, patch and generally maintain what you've got, or start from scratch.

    Thanks B/LFS!