Planning for Cross-LFS/Multi-Architecture 7.x Release

Jim Gifford lfs at
Mon Apr 18 16:43:37 PDT 2005

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:

> It could be done, but you'd have to deviate, likely, from what is in 
> the book. If I'm understanding this correctly, if you are for example, 
> building traditional x86 > x86 you could swap out the reboot for a 
> chroot. I suppose that would be the case for any matching arch pair.  
> In fact, unless there is any technical benefit to rebooting into a 
> fresh kernel before chapter 6 on matching arch pairs, I think I'd 
> rather see the book continue to chroot by default and assume that the 
> user is building for the same arch, which would remove some of the 
> pitfalls. The cross build-method would still be there to abstract the 
> tools from the host machine.
> Then, for those who need to build from one arch to another, insert 
> instructions on building a kernel and booting with tools on said machine.
> I guess I'm throwing this out because I really want to avoid those 
> pitfalls - which will greatly alter the way all the other LFS projects 
> work - Think of how this will affect ALFS and scripted builds in general.
> The main purpose I see to build from one arch for another is because 
> you lack the tools to build straight from the target arch. (I'm not 
> talking about the cross-build method in general - I appreciate very 
> much the goal of achieving 'purer' builds and the *ability* to build 
> from one arch to another). However I don't think we should by default 
> have the build set up in a way that assumes a user is building on two 
> archs.  If one of the main reasons for this method is lack of proper 
> hosts for building LFS on other archs, I'm anxious to get some cds 
> going for those archs, and would gratefully accpet any help in that 
> field.
> Hope these comments don't come as a huge shock to the rest of the 
> devs, but just reading Jim's comments and thinking on how this will 
> affect the shape and direction of LFS and its related projects - I'm 
> thinking maybe we need to give some serious thought to avoiding those 
> pitfalls entirely.
> -- 
> Jeremy Huntwork

I agree with you guys to an extent, but like I just said in a previous 
post, we could maintain two different versions of the book.One for the 
cross-compile stuff and one for the multi-arch 6.x branch. The files are 
pretty much interchangeable so a change to one could be copied over to 
the other, not a lot of changes. The only thing that will be difficult 
would be the changelog, but that can do done manually.

jim at
lfs at

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list