Ready for gcc-4 & cleaning up binutils source delete or not.

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Sat Apr 16 12:17:20 PDT 2005

TheOldFellow wrote:

>Fair comment.  My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was
>interested in gcc-4 had the links in.  But thanks for repeating them.
>I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS forwards.
It won't be long before LFS is far beyond Greg's build process.  Greg's 
still focusing on strictly x86 builds, LFS is on it's way to building on 
anything for anything with the integration of Ryan's cross-lfs scripts.

>I thing Greg's work deserves close examination - on more than the gcc-4
>front.  And it does work.
I followed Greg's work for quite some time.  There's flaws in there, and 
they've been discussed on the LFS lists previously.

>Another good way to find out the reasoning behind his choices is to look
>at the diy-linux-dev archives - very educational.
His archives also expose the fact that DIY is him alone - it's not a 
community thing - for that reason alone, LFS is the better project, IMHO.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list