Proposing a new LFS release

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at
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:
> 32->32
> 64->64
> 32->64
> 64->32[*]
> (* 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.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list