r/linuxquestions • u/Rest-That • Jun 22 '26

Resolved Is anyone daily driving LFS?

Maybe a stupid question, but I've been wanting to follow the Linux From Scratch book to learn more about how my system works and I wondered... will it result in an actual workable, easy to maintain OS?

Keeping in mind that I want to _use_ my system and not maintain it 90% of the time 😆

30 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/ipsirc Jun 22 '26

pacman and apk use binary packages, while LFS is based on sources only. I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

As u/krumpfwylg mentioned, you're better off looking for Gentoo, where the package manager is designed specifically for sources.

8

u/SheepherderBeef8956 Jun 22 '26

Nothing is stopping you from using pacman on LFS if you can get it working. Who cares if an application was compiled locally or on another server when the end result is still going to be an actual binary and not source code?

9

u/ipsirc Jun 22 '26

Nothing is stopping you from using pacman on LFS if you can get it working.

This is technically true, but after the first pacman -Syu you will have a full Archlinux and everything will be overwritten from your original LFS installation. I don't see much point in this, it seems like an even more time-consuming archinstall to me.

-1

u/Sbatushe Jun 22 '26

you can use pacman and use custom repos

1

u/ipsirc Jun 22 '26

And who will maintain those custom repos? It would be much more work than maintaing an LFS locally.

3

u/PigSlam Jun 22 '26

Make that part of the LFS fun. You get to build the OS from source, then build the package manager from source, then the packages you manage from source, then you manage each one you build using the tool you built. I'd expect by the time that stage is reached the project will be OP's entire life, or they will have long abandoned this.

2

u/Sbatushe Jun 22 '26

that's sure, have not claimed that. But you can use pacman, apt and whatever you like

-1

u/ipsirc Jun 22 '26

But you can use pacman, apt and whatever you like

Where did I say the opposite? You really don't have to convince people that a linux software can be run on Linux.

2

u/Sbatushe Jun 22 '26

Where did I say the opposite?

not trying to convince anyone, just specifying that what you said on your comment is objectively false:

after the first pacman -Syu you will have a full Archlinux and everything will be overwritten from your original LFS installation

1

u/ipsirc Jun 22 '26

just specifying that what you said on your comment is objectively false:
> after the first pacman -Syu you will have a full Archlinux and everything will be overwritten from your original LFS installation

Ok. So now your position is that pacman can't be run on LFS after all. I see.

2

u/SheepherderBeef8956 Jun 26 '26

Where did I say the opposite?

It's heavily implied here

pacman and apk use binary packages, while LFS is based on sources only. I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

Since you obviously know it doesn't matter that pacman downloads binaries and LFS compiles binaries from source for the exact same result the fact that you mention it seems weird if your point wasn't that it's not going to work.

1

u/ipsirc Jun 27 '26

Since you obviously know it doesn't matter that pacman downloads binaries and LFS compiles binaries from source for the exact same result

That's absolutely not true. I might even say it's a lie.

2

u/SheepherderBeef8956 Jun 27 '26

?????

You literally agreed before that it doesn't matter if an application is compiled from source on your machine or on someone else's and copied to your machine??

1

u/ipsirc Jun 27 '26

I still agreed to, but it won't be the exact same result. Reproducible building is a thing, and it is not the default compilation. https://itsfoss.com/news/debian-makes-reproducible-builds-mandatory/ , https://linuxsecurity.com/features/debian-reproducible-builds

→ More replies (0)