[LFS Trac] #2094: Add a new section for build results

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Sat Oct 20 22:25:46 PDT 2007

LFS Trac wrote:
> #2094: Add a new section for build results
> --------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
>  Reporter:  jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org  |       Owner:  lfs-book at linuxfromscratch.org
>      Type:  task                            |      Status:  new                          
>  Priority:  normal                          |   Milestone:                               
> Component:  Book                            |     Version:  JH                           
>  Severity:  normal                          |    Keywords:                               
> --------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
>  With the jh branch supporting multiple architectures, it is reasonable and
>  very useful to add a section which confirms what hardware has successfully
>  built the provided commands. If a specific architecture hasn't been
>  successfully built recently, this will clearly show itself - users
>  building on that architecture may have to do some of their own
>  troubleshooting.
Ok maybe I missed the announcement, since when did LFS start supporting 
other architectures, as it stands LFS at it's current state can only 
support x86. When it was suggested once before it was said there was not 
enough people to maintain architectures other than x86 based.  Has this 
changed??  Do you plan on having the CLFS devs who support multiple 
architectures assist, if so who has contacted the CLFS team to make the 

My team has received numerous questions asking why LFS is re-inventing 
CLFS, and if we are affiliated with this movement. I have had to say no, 
because I knew of nothing about this effort.

As one of the CLFS Leaders, I am upset over the fact their was no 
communication to the CLFS team. One thing upsets me ever more is the 
comment in the ticket, that users will need to do their own 
troubleshooting, they started to come to my team for this. We have no 
mechanisms in place to support the LFS effort of multiple architectures.

This just seems a way to push out CLFS out of the picture.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list