timothy at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jul 4 07:50:29 PDT 2002
On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 01:47:56AM -0700, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> I've been thinking about this and I remenber speaking to Ron when he
> first mentioned it on IRC.
> I'm not so sure that was the proper move. Like being platform
> idenpendant is always a good thing, however it is generally assumed that
> you are using an x86 machine. The apps *do* get installed, little point
> in not referencing them, even if they are x86 specific in this case.
Well, i think that LFS should be as platform independent as
possible. If there is a standard to these files, such as:
Then they should be re-added to the package contents again.
They weren't there to begin with, until i added them. I
could google for this, but if anyone is using a platform
other than the PC, please send me the output from this:
> Perhaps the kernel installations in chapter 8 should also be changed
> then, considering it is very x86 specific also (copying the kernel using
> arch/i386/boot by default for example and iirc bzImage is only available
> on x86? don't quote me on that thou :P)
I don't think you were serious, but nonetheless:
"Note: the arch/i386/boot/bzImage path may vary on different platforms."
> Thou this is just imho, don't ask me what *should* be done (:
If these files are always [platform]-filename, i'll
them as such. However, i will not be add i686-specific
programs to the package contents directly, even if the
majority of LFS users use i686.
Again, i really want a Mac :)
-*- "Share and Enjoy" || "Go stick your head in a pig" -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev