Proposing a new LFS release

Aleksandar Kuktin akuktin at
Mon Jan 25 06:45:49 PST 2010

>On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:42:58 -0600
>Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at> wrote:
> Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> > ok thanks for this answer. I'll remember that 32-32 64-64, it will
> > be easier for me to solve some problems.
> > 
> > For multilib, I understand it'll be never done lfs. ok. I'm pleased
> > with knowing precisely this. It will help me to see my translation
> > strategy among complex lfs world :)
> Never say never.  It's my opinion that multilib, in general, is not 
> needed for LFS.  Others may (probably do) disagree.
> > Last question (still short): do you think it's useful (and will be
> > done) to build lfs from 32 to 64bits?
> Personally, no, I don't think it's useful in general.  It is useful
> in specialized applications like building for an embedded device that 
> doesn't have a compiler and other build support.  However, I think
> that is beyond the scope of LFS.
>    -- Bruce

Actually, there is one problem with a pure-64 bit system, as far as
FOSS is conserned: GNU Emacs has not been ported to it (yet).

Emacs can be built using a multilib, and works like a dream when it is.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list