useless files

Timothy Bauscher timothy at
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:

ls /usr/bin/*linux-gnu*

> 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
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list