Planning for Cross-LFS/Multi-Architecture 7.x Release
bdubbs at swbell.net
Mon Apr 18 22:00:06 PDT 2005
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> The need to reboot and build from the console is an overwhelmingly
>> big new difference. To the point that I would have to find a different
>> build method than what Jim described.
> And that need only arises if you are building from a different arch from
> your host. For example - my current PPC machine is a terribly slow 120
> Mhz 604 processor. Building current LFS 6 on that machine takes nearly
> a week of work to get done. What if I could build a large portion of
> that on my nice fast X86_64 machine? That would be a good thing. For
> you, the situation is different - you build strictly on x86-class
> machines - there would be no need for you to reboot, as was pointed out
> by Ryan. You could simply chroot into $LFS and continue on your way.
> There's a lot of plusses to this build, and very few downfalls, when you
> really sit down to think about it. Mentioning the need for the reboot
> was a good thing, but it's important to know WHY that becomes essential
> - because if we're building for a different arch, the binaries we create
> as part of the initial tools will not run on the host. If those
> binaries will run, there's absolutely no need to reboot.
My objection was to the comment that rebooting was mandatory. If
instructions are given to give the user a choice and to explain the pros
and cons, I do not object.
I would point out that most people think of a cross compile as changing
architectures. That really only happens once. After the port to the
new arctitecture, I think most would prefer to work in chroot
environment. I know I certainly would.
BTW, I will need to do this eventually. My new box is an Intel 86_64
arctitecture so I will want to build it as a 64 bit system.
More information about the lfs-dev