Ready for gcc-4 & cleaning up binutils source delete or not.
gschafer at zip.com.au
Sat Apr 23 16:11:02 PDT 2005
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Greg's still focusing on strictly x86 builds
The key difference is that I only publish what I can test. Think about it.
Your claims of LFS "support" for other arches up until now is bogus.
But the multi-arch XML approach is a good move.
> I followed Greg's work for quite some time. There's flaws in there, and
> they've been discussed on the LFS lists previously.
Huh? I can point out so many more flaws in the current LFS build it ain't
funny (some are already mentioned on my project's website). Face it, the
plfs stuff was never finished properly, and the worst thing is, you're
still publishing the half-assed version. It's a fact.
Unless you have facts to back up your claims of "flaws in there", I can
only assume you're back to your bad old trolling ways. Please act your age
and don't go there.
My build achieves its current goals perfectly on x86. When I support other
arches I will adjust accordingly. My build won't work on other arches
because it's not meant to.
> 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.
You'd be surprised how many folks contact me expressing dis-satisfaction
with the current LFS "community". It's flame-bait posts like this one of
yours that don't do LFS any favours.
More information about the lfs-dev