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

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Sat Apr 16 23:33:00 PDT 2005

TheOldFellow wrote:

>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a dicussion.
> I do not propose that you just copy the script - the LFS aims are quite
>different from Greg's - no reason you can't examine them for good ideas
With the new build process being worked on, Greg's stuff won't be able
to give us a whole lot of good ideas.

>Good point.  I accept that.  There were two points that I wanted you to
>take on board:  1) The dumpspecs/-specs= approach, even for gcc-3X.  2)
>Getting rid of the 'keep binutils sources around' which so confuses the
I haven't looked myself at the specs file issue yet, so I can't comment
on that.  The keeping of the binutils sources around will be gone with
7.0 with the cross-lfs process.

If you like examining scripts for ideas, try taking a look at these:

svn co svn:// cross-lfs

That's the subversion repository for Ryan's cross-lfs scripts, which is
for the most part what LFS 7 will be based from.  IIUC, Jim Gifford's
already starting to work on getting them into XML form.  Jim, care to
update the list on the progress so far?

As for myself, I'm anxious to see a LFS process that works properly for
the bi-arch x86-64 toolchain :)  Now that I have a 64-bit machine, I
would really like to be able to get the most from it!


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list