LFS Roadmap (Was: Re: As promised: LFS compilation summary)

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon May 12 08:07:41 PDT 2008

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:37:24AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I agree totally that trying to introduce multilib into LFS would be
> very difficult for us right now. I wasn't trying to say we should. In
> fact, I probably shouldn't have commented to the thread at all. But I
> wasn't sure if the OP was talking Pure-64.

No problem, I understood what you were trying to say.
> And now that I think about it some, multilib isn't that difficult for
> LFS, it is BLFS where it becomes a total PITA (time-consuming).

And that's where we usually hit the trouble, unfortunately. It'll be the
same story if/when we try to introduce any sort of PM. Even the addition
of x86_64 alone means we have to test the packages on that hardware.
(Fortunately, my testing shows that most packages build and behave as
expected on x86_64 without modification of build commands.)

But I don't think that should hold us back from trying new things. I
think our general approach to development may need to be adjusted,
though. More on that later... :)


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list