On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 02:16:18PM -0700, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Em 01-07-2012 15:32, Ken Moffat escreveu: > > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 01:16:00PM +0530, Emerson Yesupatham wrote: > > [...] > > > If you are never going to boot a kernel older than > > 2.6.35, specifying 2.6.35 should be fine. > > > > For my own desktop builds (several each year, using LFS-svn) I > > reduce the cruft by using the current kernel and (typically) I > > enable that version > > Ken, does this mean you use, e.g., > > --enable-kernel=3.4.4? > For glibc-2.15 I've been using --enable-kernel=3.2.0.
The third level for 3.x kernels is never relevant in this (just as the fourth level of 2.6.x.y was never relevant), so if there is something new in 3.4 that glibc cares about I would use 3.4.0. The subsequent 'stable' releases shouldn't add new features. > - the actual details of what has changed are in > > glibc's sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h. OTOH, for recent > > kernels there is not a lot of change in the features and modern > > disks and physical memory are usually big. > > > > I *have* been caught out in the last year - moved my existing > > desktops to new machines, so I had to build new kernels : I used > > SystemRescueCD to chroot and do that, but the version I was > > using was compiled for linux-3.0, so my binaries for 3.2 weren't > > usable. I had to install an older LFS system to get it to chroot. > > So, SRCD had linux-3.0 but your system was built with > > --enable-kernel=3.2? > I used =3.2.0, but yes, effectively the same. I don't even know if glibc has been updated to recognise only 3.x or 3.x.y as valid options (in the old days, 2.4 or 2.6 would not have made a lot of sense for that switch). > > After that, of course, I could boot to the older system, chroot to > > the current system. build a kernel for that, and then boot the > > current system and use that to build a fresh one. It's always good > > to know what the upgrade / rescue path is :) > > You know, I recently cloned a VM LFS system to another hardware, so > these questions interest me very much, particularly, I agree very much > with your last sentence about "rescue path". > Yes, it can be *fun* :) ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
