LFS and 64-bit hosts

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Mon Oct 1 13:43:58 PDT 2007

On 10/1/07, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:20:02AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On 9/30/07, Chris Staub <chris at beaker67.com> wrote:
> > > There are an increasing number of users who report errors building LFS,
> > > and then say they are attempting it on a 64-bit host system. It really
> > > needs to be stated on the LFS website that LFS assumes a 32-bit system,
> > > and point users with 64-bit systems either to the 64-bit LFS
> > > book/livecd, or CLFS.
> >
> > Very good point. Seems we're getting support requests on this every
> > other day now. I've never been very fond of the ambiguousness in LFS
> > about what hardware is supported. The only thing that's fully
> > supported right now is x86. Full stop. If people in the know want to
> > make it work on PPC or x86_64, that's great, but we shouldn't give
> > that impression to people who are just following along.
> >
>  My ears are burning.  The problem is that we have an increasingly
> wide range of users but, for whatever reason, many of them are
> reluctant to consider clfs.  I suspect that in part it's because
> clfs is (usually) much closer to the bleeding edge, and more likely
> to have issues on at least some of its platforms.  I've got fed up
> saying "use clfs" where *for experienced and knowledgeable builders*
> the LFS instructions can be adequately adapted.

I didn't state that until later in my message, but part of the "we
only support x86" would be a pointer to CLFS.

As for the "for experienced and knowledgeable builders", I'm assuming
that part of that knowledge would be that you don't need the LFS book
to tell you what it can and can't do. What I want to guard against is
the common new user who has no idea about the history of LFS. To me,
the book should be completely clear about what is going to happen.

If we want to support another platform, it should be fully supported
in the book. No relying on unstated "in the know" exceptions.

> > First, where should this be placed for LFS? I'd say in the book (can't
> > decide where) it should be really clear what is and is not supported.
> > Unfortunately, LFS-6.3 is in the wild already. We can change trunk to
> > say x86 only until the jh branch is merged. For everything else, we
> > should point to CLFS. If this info is already in the book, it needs to
> > be made a lot clearer.
> >
>  We have the conflict that the book still tries to cover other
> architectures (e.g. the name of the dynamic linker in the note in
> "adjusting the toolchain").  I would be sorry to see that, and the
> note in "Toolchain Technical Notes", go - particularly when I hope
> that the book will soon support at least x86_64 in some way.

That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

>  Maybe a big note at the start of "Host System Requirements" ?  But,
> it needs to be somewhere that most people will read, and we know
> that enough people skip that section.  I'm tempted to suggest
> putting a note at the start of packages.html, but stylistically it
> is the wrong place.

Right. I was thinking the Audience page would be appropriate, but I'd
never read that until today :)

> > Second, the LFS website should say this. Probably right up front:
> >
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/
> >
>  Agreed.
>  We are still going to get people using 6.2 and 6.3 who think they
> can do x86_64 without doing anything different.  Maybe we should
> also put a message on the 'Read the LFS Book Online' page on the
> website ?

I was sort of hoping just the top-level LFS page would take care of
it, but I suppose it's needed in the version specific sections
instead. Especially if/when x86_64 support is added.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list