Proposing a new LFS release
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 15:45:53 PST 2010
Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:39:13 +0100, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
>> what kind of buildings can do a user exactly
>> with this stable (6.6)? From 64 to 64 bits? From 32 to 32? Or 32 to 64?
> Actually, the underlying build method supports all combinations:
> (* the last one really surprised me as I never designed the method for
> this. It just requires some judicious use of `setarch')
> And it even works on hybrid hosts ie: those running a 64-bit kernel with
> a 32-bit userland.
That's interesting to know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are not
doing x->x, I don't think we would be able to actually use the programs
in /tools until we got into the chroot environment. We certainly don't
have the resources to test all the possible combinations.
In the case of x->y, I'd also be concerned about the possibility of some
other programs besides the tool chain picking things up from /proc.
> However, as currently implemented by LFS, the full capabilities of the
> build method are not being exploited. But that's OK, because the LFS
> target audience probably doesn't need all the possibilities.
Yes, that's right. We want to have a single build path for users who
have never built a full system before.
More information about the lfs-dev