On 3 August 2017 at 03:21, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:56:21PM -0400, Alain Toussaint wrote: > > Good to know, I will test out. > > > > speaking of kernel, I always use $(uname -r) instead of 2.6.32 in the > > configure step. > > > > Alain > > > Depends on what you want to do with it. From time to time I test > -rc kernels, with the expectation that at some really awkward time > I'll need to bisect for a regression. And that can sometimes mean > going back acouple of nominal versions. > > More pertinently - when I really screw up, or if a drive dies, I > might need to use a rescue disk (or rescue stick, if I ever work out > how to create one). I use systemrescuecd, if I want to chroot to > the broken system e.g. to fix up grub, then glibc needs a minimum > kernel version less than or equal to what the rescue system > provides. > My long-held belief is that the boot system should always reside on a separate device; it's not an intrinsic part of the OS. I've created a number of tiny USB flash drives, one for each box, which remain permanently attached. They each have three partitions: the boot system, some swap, and an LFS rescue system. If the box fails to boot, then during the boot process I can switch to booting into the rescue partition. It works well. I just thought I'd share that, in case anybody is interested. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
