Question 1: What is the minimal requirement to be able to chroot?
Question 2: What is the minimal requirement to be able to boot?
Question 3: What is the minimal requirement for fully functional gcc?

Or I might consider this spam ... reported.

Why would you think so?
I've been around Linux for about 30 years. All you gurus veterans or what not have never ever asked these questions. So it is not about spamming.
It is about questions that you cannot apt or yum install answer to. So my dear ... why don't you give it a shot?

spam, because there is a link to a site which is not related to linux at all.

2 members found this post helpful.

Not true. Among other things Linux matters will be dealt with care. See ... getting tired of what I consider superficiality in Linux forums I want
to bring some fundamental issues to the awareness of wider audience. As a matter of fact I have set up little boxes that answer these questions.
As a seasoned veteran you certainly saw tons of veiling about chrooting. But not many answers. And certainly not the answer to my question. Anyhow
very soon there will be the lightest complete Linux boxes on earth found on the site, including the fundamental ... which will include functional gcc
a web browser and a complete BusyBox with anything in existence that you may want on a Live Box. Better than Knoppix. MUCH better. There will be also
boxes with a choice of the desktop. And ... not a Debian or Fedora based. 64-bit from scratch.

Sorry, but your 'deep questions' are vague and pointless. Chrooting WHAT? Shell? FTP? SFTP? What 'tons of veiling' are you talking about??? Chroot'ing has been around for years, and is well documented. And anyone who has done LFS knows exactly how to build a 'fully functional' GCC, along with the boot process.

Given your comments about 'superficiality in Linux forums", I'd wager you've shoveled this out in lots of places, and gotten the same responses. Mainly because you're a spammer, trying to advertise your site. If you have something great and groundbreaking, then GO DO IT and quit spamming forums telling people how great your stuff is and how no one else knows what you're talking about.

Well ... you do not get it. What I am trying to get is that you, instead of talking about spamming and advertising, get to work.
Take an empty directory and install MINIMAL stuff necessary so that you can chroot to it. I will be more than happy that you do that.
If the reference to my work bothers you you can safely forget about the site. For the time being it is under construction. So guys ... please get to
work and make me happy. The sooner the better.

And for a functional gcc ... install gcc in your minimal chroot directory and make it work. I don't think it is either
dubious or pointless. Please make me happy and get to work. It is not easy but it is great learning experience and hugely
satisfying. Good luck!

Seems like YOU do not get it. You're spamming this forum, and have seemingly done it to others.
I work more in a day than you probably do in a week.
We don't have you make you happy, and I don't CARE if you're happy. Want something done? Then YOU GET TO WORK AND GO DO IT. Simple.

I've performed chroot'ing many times, and it sure isn't hard, and its also very well documented. If you're having problems, then (as you say) "get to work".

Well ... the point is that right now you cannot do it. Simple. And please forget about site. I will delete the reference to it.

Done. So we can focus on the topic. Talk to me again when you have the answers.

And ... make it that you can chroot in initially EMPTY directory!

OK, I'll spring the trap. I have no idea what all this is supposed to be about, but as a long-time LFS user, I would say minimum chroot requirements are a root partition with the expected top level directories, containing at least a shell and a C library. You couldn't do anything useful with that though.

Now we are talking. Please give it a shot and tell me what you get. True ... you can do nothing with it. But it is a great start to answering the
other two questions.

Why the heck should I? I don't work for you.

1 members found this post helpful.

why? what is the goal of this thread?

1 members found this post helpful.

My goal is to start a new culture to Linux world. See I am a scientist and as such concerned with fundamental questions. In my 30 years with Linux nobody ever posed these
questions. And I am fed with that. It is not my goal to insult anybody but what bothers me is that developers NEVER answer the questions asked on the forums. NEVER! And the same questions just keep on resurfacing. I would like to motivate the Linux users to move away from that.
Those who are able to answer my questions will NEVER again ask the questions of failed builds and boots. They will learn to smoothly build from scratch rock solid
boxes. As for LFS ... as I said I doubt it works and it certainly is not 64-bit build. I will be happy to get just a few girls and guys on board for this. For starters.

You obviously don't know much about LFS! I've been using it for years, building each new system out of the last. And what makes you think it can't do a 64-bit build? By default, LFS builds to the same architecture as your host system, which is usually 64-bit nowadays. If you want a different architecture, you just use CLFS instead.

1 members found this post helpful.