[blfs-support] Are BLFS and CLFS compatible?

hazeldebian@googlemail hazeldebian at googlemail.com
Mon Jul 13 08:10:44 PDT 2015

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:37:09 +0100
Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:07:16AM -0700, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> > On 12 July 2015 at 08:01, Hazel Russman <hazeldebian at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I have recently bought a second-hand laptop and would like to build
> > > a CLFS for it. I have done several LFS builds but this would be my
> > > first time with CLFS. If I succeed, can I upgrade to a working Linux
> > > system by using packages from BLFS? I am aware that CLFS is very much
> > > behind LFS/BLFS in terms of the software that it uses. Would the BLFS
> > > packages build correctly with this tool chain and would they link
> > > correctly to the older libc?
> > >
> > > Or would it be better to use the built CLFS purely to bootstrap LFS-7.7 and continue from there?
> > >
> Hmm, I'm glad somebody replied to this because otherwise I would not
> have seen it - I suppose that google's spam filters have trapped the
> original.
> > 
> > There is no compatibility between the projects.  Off the top of my
> > head the first problem you will run into is lfs installs everything
> > into /lib, /usr/lib and symlinks lib64 to those folders while clfs
> > uses /lib for 32bit and /lib64 for 64bit.  At best, all your  blfs
> > 64bit software will be installed into /lib and at worst you will be
> > overwriting 32bit libraries with 64bit counterpart.
> > 
> True (I assume we are talking of multilib x86_64).  But not the whole
> story.
> > If you use clfs, you will want to use cblfs.
> Unfortunately, cblfs has become unloved and many packages are too
> old to be useful.  But it does contain a lot more than is in BLFS.
> And it will be useful to point out things you should consider for
> each package.
I also got the impression while rummaging around there that a lot of the stuff there is too old to be useful. They still have Firefox 3!
> If a package provides libraries for another package to use, typically
> CC="gcc ${BUILD64}" and --libdir=/usr/lib64, or "CC=gcc ${BUILD32}".
> So, best to read BOTH books.  On multilib, consider what needs to be
> 32-bit, and what 64-bit.  When I was active in clfs, I only rarely
> built multilib because I found it too painful to build many packages
> twice.  In those days there were still problems with some packages
> in 64-bit.  Nowadays, most libre software will be fine on x86_64 and
> I try to avoid non-libre, so I do not have any need for 32-bit x86
> (except where the machine is underpowered and short of memory).
This would not be multilib but a pure 32-bit build. The laptop has Intel Atom processors but they are an old model that doesn't do 64-bit code. That's probably why I got it so cheaply!

> > (I personally have not looked at clfs for a long time, but I modified
> > my own lfs build using a few changes from clfs a few years back.
> > Specifically I don't have a lib64, 32bit software installs itself into
> > /lib/i386-linux-gnu (not actually clfs, but I like having a single lib
> > folder), and 64bit software into /lib.  Allows blfs to work as
> > intended (since it installs into lib),  while still allowing myself to
> > compile 32bit software.  But it is at it's core lfs, not clfs)
> > 
> Interesting.
> ken
> -- 
> This one goes up to eleven!

Given the complications you both describe, I am veering towards using the 32-bit clfs build purely as a bootstrap to build lfs locally. Then all I shall need to add to it are links (to read the book) and gpm (to copy and paste). I shan't need networking at this stage as I already have the lfs-7.7 sources on my desktop machine. The extra stage will take extra time but I have plenty of that.
> -- 
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

More information about the blfs-support mailing list