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

Jeremy Utley jeremy at jutley.org
Sat Apr 23 17:17:34 PDT 2005


Greg Schafer wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Then my LFS 6.0 build which is currently installed on my PowerMac must 
be a fluke - Jim's LFS builds on his Cobalt MIPS machines the same.  The 
book is written for x86, this is true, and because that's by far the 
most common platform, that's also by far the most heavily tested 
platform.  But, that's not to say you can't build LFS on something else, 
and in most cases, with minimal adjustments to the build process.

>  
>
>>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.
>  
>
And why is that?  As I remember it, you were the one who pushed for 
incorporating PLFS into the book - why did you do that if it wasn't 
finished?  And instead of finishing the job, you acted like Larry McVoy 
with BitKeeper - you took your ball and went home.  I've seen you post a 
few suggestions for LFS onto our lists, and they were duly considered, 
and accepted or rejected upon their merits, just like any other 
contributor to the project.  You're always welcome to make more 
suggestions here on LFS-Dev, and we'll be happy to consider them.  But, 
if all you're going to do is come here and flame at other members of the 
LFS community, then, IMHO, you don't belong on this list.  Remember, 
that's my opinion, I am NOT speaking for anyone other than myself here.

>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.
>  
>
The facts to back up my statement are in the LFS-Dev archives for anyone 
who cares to go looking for them.  I'm not going to rehash that here.

>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.
>  
>
And right there is my point.  LFS is becoming more than just a simple 
X86 build.  We have LFSers building on many varied arch's - PPC, PPC64, 
Sparc, MIPS, ARM, X86-64 are ones that spring to mind right off the top 
of my head.  Rather than leave these people out in the cold, we've 
chosen to work with them.  You could do the same, if you only wanted to, 
but DIY-Linux, again IMHO, speaking from someone who was on your lists 
for quite some time, was always about what's best for you, not what's 
best for a community of people.  That probably makes your project a 
little easier for you, but it also limits the people who will want to be 
involved.



I ask everyone reading this to keep in mind that when I post to these 
lists, I'm posting as MYSELF, a simple LFSer, nothing else.  Only Gerard 
or Matthew have the right to speak for the project at large.

J



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list