Ready for gcc-4 & cleaning up binutils source delete or not.
theoldfellow at gmail.com
Sat Apr 16 13:00:01 PDT 2005
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> 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.
Good comments Jeremy.
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
More information about the lfs-dev