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

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at
Sat Apr 23 09:33:42 PDT 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:

> I believe the XML can be massaged into allowing the correct set of
> instructions dependent on whether or not the reboot is required. Failing
> that, we simply give folks a choice.  

I'm not really in favor of the "generate the book that you need"
approach.  I makes it much more difficult to compare techniques and
understand the differences.  Most users will not need to use the cross
compiling techniques, but may want to know the differences and the
advantages and disadvantages of each method.  The fundamental objective
of the book is education and generating separate books, while
technically possible, would not further that objective.

I'll also note that in a minor way the book now gives at least one
choice.  In section 7.6 we say:

"If non-ASCII characters ... will not be used and the keyboard is a U.S.
one, skip this section."

> I think the only other point of contention is the necessity of some
> additional tools (SSH, etc.) to facilitate building on some non-x86
> arches.

I'm also concerned by the idea of adding some BLFS packages to LFS
(openssl, openssh).  At a minimum, it can cause problems if different
architectures don't update tools at the same time.  Perhaps a better
approach is to point to the BLFS procedures and we can add any
alternative instructions there for different architectures.

  -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list