Re: Hint for deploying LFS-3.3 to a retro PC

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1776805511-1253-25354
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/21/26 3:25 PM, Sander van der Burg ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing 
List) wrote:
> Hello LFS community,
> 
> A couple of months ago, for a fun project, I have built a custom retro PC with parts 
> from 1999-2002 to run old applications and games for nostalgic and research purposes. 
> Although it is possible to find various kinds of old Linux distribution ISO images 
> from this time period, I was not satisfied with any one of them.
> 
> As a result, I have decided to do an old Linux from Scratch installation for my retro 
> PC. I have selected LFS-3.3 because of its toolchain: GNU Binutils 2.12, GCC 2.95.3 
> and glibc 2.2.5. I am using this historical LFS book to install old applications such 
> as KDE 2.2.2 and GNOME 1.4 by following the hints that are stored in the OLD/ directory.
> 
> Another motivating use case is to run games published by Loki games, such as Unreal 
> Tournament.
> 
> Although the packages in the book are old, I was not completely happy with some of 
> the choices in the book, such as symlinking /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts and statically 
> compiling a bootstrap toolset in a single pass. In later versions of the LFS book 
> these issues were fixed/improved.
> 
> I have written an hint that explains how to deploy LFS-3.3 in a more robust way with 
> a modified packaging strategy based on the pure_lfs.txt hint. I have also corrected 
> the /etc/mtab problem by following the mtab-pre-lfs-4.1.txt hint.
> 
> I have also developed a patch for GCC to adjust the GCC specs file.
> 
> I understand that this hint describes a very uncommon use case. An old distro such as 
> LFS-3.3 should not be used for production purposes, but nonetheless I thought it 
> would be interesting to share the results of my experiment.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sander van der Burg

Well that's certainly an ancient version of LFS.  I do not see any reference to your 
SBU time but as I recall on my my very early builds around that time it was about 235 
seconds (almost 4 minutes).  Have fun.

I've added your hint to the hints repository and the associated patch to the patches 
repository.

   -- Bruce

------------=_1776805511-1253-25354
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
------------=_1776805511-1253-25354--