[PLUG] Linux From Scratch (LFS) anyone

[Jeme A Brelin]

I'll try to ACTUALLY answer your questions here instead of just suggesting
other routes than the one about which you are curious.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
> With move of Redhat Linux to Fedora Linux I've decided to look at other
> distribution options.  One of my biggest complaints with RHL is the
> irrelevant (to me) dependencies too often imposed on packages.  My best
> example is why are Japanese fonts part of the standard installation and
> impossible to 'not install'?

Well, I think that's a fairly minimal example.  Being able to properly
represent what a person would like to display is important.  A diverse set
of fonts help you to see things the way authors intend.

But I get what you mean.  I've never understood why Red Hat was so
freakin' huge.

> So my question is; has anyone tried and/or succeeded with a LFS install?

I run a few LFS systems.  There's more regular administration than a
package-based system, but you get more flexibility and an ability to be on
a bleeding edge that binary package management just doesn't allow.  (Also,
you learn HEAPS about the way a system really works.)

You're still going to run into dependency problems and you'll have to
watch every build to see if key features are being quietly (hopefully not
silently, unless it's a really poorly configured build routine) disabled
for lack of a library or something.  You start to build something, realize
you need something else, etc.  You end up working your way backwards down
several trees sometimes.  But a tiny bit of research on the front side can
save you an hour's work on the back.

I'd personally recommend building a system from scratch (LFS or otherwise)
rather than one of the source-based distributions because I prefer to get
the source directly from the maintainer rather than from some third party
that has done unknown futzing.  The LFS Book contains numerous patches
that should (and sometimes must) be applied to the standard source
packages, but they are short, comprehensible and, most importantly,
plainly published for all to see.

> I'm looking at servers and desktops so any and all input is appreciated.

I would choose something with a little less administration overhead for a
server.  Personally, I'd go with Debian.  I think you'll like the
flexibility and control you can get with the apt tools and the larger
software systems are usually spread out among several package with
different levels of dependency (required, recommended, suggested, etc.).

I have one LFS server (on a P60, if you can believe it), but it runs so
few services, I don't have much trouble keeping it updated.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org