[blfs-support] Are BLFS and CLFS compatible?

Nathan Coulson conathan at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 22:02:02 PDT 2015


On 13 July 2015 at 08:10, hazeldebian at googlemail
<hazeldebian at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page

ah, well a single arch most of my potential problems are no more
(won't "just" work 100% of the time, but you could probably make blfs
work in most cases and google around for when it doesn't).

I do love those EeePC's, wonderful pc's.

If I can ask,  what drew you to clfs for a single arch build?  (not
arguing against it, but lfs does compile for 32bit.  If that is what
you want to use anyway, could make your blfs packages easier).

http://nathancoulson.com/proj_lfs.php - everything's long out of date
(sorry), but does show how my build worked as of the last time I
updated it.


as for the email,  seemed to come into my mailbox fine.
-- 
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
------
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Timezone: PST (-8)
Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com


More information about the blfs-support mailing list