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

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Oct 21 06:07:55 PDT 2007

Justin R. Knierim wrote:
> I know I am not a hardcore developer in either lfs or clfs, so my voice 
> isn't one of much authority, but if I could throw out my opinion.  It is 
> clear that supporting multiple arches is becoming more and more useful.  
> CLFS is a sub project of LFS and already has working and tested 
> implementations for so many arches, with 32bit, 64bit and multilib.  
> These are not all useful at this time in the main LFS book.  While 
> research is always fine, why would one do research that has already been 
> done for possibly even years now by CLFS devs and not even drop them a 
> message saying "how can X arch or X bit system be best implemented in 
> LFS?"  I know Jeremy is a great guy and does good research, but in my 
> opinion not contacting CLFS devs _is_ re-inventing the wheel.  Is it so 
> hard to email one of us to ask for opinions or ideas?

For now, two things:

1. This should hardly be a surprise, the jh branch has existed for 
months (before that there was the x86_64 branch) and from the very 
beginning one of its main goals was to support x86_64. The reason for 
that was the growing realization that people want support for that and 
perhaps other architectures in _LFS_. There has been a great deal of 
discussion about all of the development happening there on the lfs-dev 
list - if you were really that interested in what LFS is doing surely by 
now you would have noticed.

2. We aren't re-inventing the wheel. Especially in the beginning, CLFS 
was heavily consulted. We are simply porting the general LFS build 
method to other architectures by providing necessary fixes, some 
originating from CLFS, some from DIY, and some are original.

In any case, after going through CLFS build methods, there's a number of 
things there that seem unnecessary. Alexander already mentioned the 
'file' issue. Another: why does binutils have a --disable-multilib 
switch? Also, why patch things heavily to use 64-bit locations when 
building 64-bit only when you can just create symlinks, e.g., lib64 -> lib?


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list