Bring up multi-arch again

[Ivan Kabaivanov]

On Saturday 01 March 2008, Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> within the current discussion i try to start a balloon again which is named
> multi-platform. I do not mean it in the way of cross-compiling but building
> a LFS system for the current running maschine. Which ever this machine is.
> Staying on the same architecture, the differences between the architectures
> compared to others are not sooo much, i think (am i right here?). Staying
> on the arch i mean, that i'm going to build a PPC-LFS on a PPC, or a
> x86-LFS on a x86. the most different parts is the name of the dynmic
> linker, i think, and the option on boot loaders (lilo, grub, yaboot,
> whatelse).
>
> What do you think about having a a bit closer look to this? A separate
> section about choosing the boot-loader? And of course a section about
> required packages for a specific arch - if there are one?
>
> --
> Thomas

I second that with this clarification -- I'd like to see a sort of merge 
between LFS and CLFS.  What I mean: take the CLFS instructions and put them 
in LFS but not the cross-arch-compiling stuff, but just the arch specific 
stuff and make it a native build.  From previous threads I've seen enough 
interested people in natively building LFS on ppc, sparc, alpha, mips, etc.  
I think LFS should cooperate more closely with CLFS (and DIY when Greg feels 
the time is right) so that the instructions work on more arches than just x86 
or x86_64.  With the current non-book dynamic approach this can be easily 
achieved.

I think since we're talking about a major new direction for LFS now's the time 
to reevaluate this.  Please do.  LFS is not x86 just as Linux is not x86.

I think it's imperative that the devels of LFS, CLFS, HLFS, and DIY (am I 
forgetting any other?) should all be involved in this discussion and try to 
pool their strengths together and move in one direction rather than pull the 
project in different directions.

IvanK.