LFS on Alpha - some results - need advisce!

Neoklis kneoklis at cytanet.com.cy
Sun Sep 17 05:51:01 PDT 2000


I think I have managed to sort-of succeed with the first stage of porting
LFS to my Alpha-UP1000 box, that is getting as far as doing a working
chroot into $LFS. However, gcc-2.95.2 doggedly refuses to compile no
matter what I do, so I (think) I successfully compiled libc-2.1.3 which
I downloaded from Debian and patched it so that it is hopefully identical
to what Debian's potato installation has. This I (think) has allowed me
to compile the packages of chapter 5 dynamically while in the original
potato environment using its installed gcc. The idea was to test the 
possibility of compiling the rest of the packages of chapter 6 dynamically
without chroot to $LFS, since there is no gcc in there.

Now what I need to know for sure is, since I had so many failures getting
this far, is the following:

Does the fact that I can chroot to $LFS and run many of the packages I
compiled dynamically, mean that glibc has succesfully installed? In other
words I am not too sure that the executables I tested (like sed, grep,
gzip etc) are actually the ones I compiled and not of potatos, and if they
are $LFS's that they are running with the libc of $LFS. (I tried running
a couple of programs like pico and vim that are in potato and not in LFS
but I got the "command not found message", so I dare say this means Yes!)

Should I continue installing Chapter 6 packages the same way, eg 
dynamcally compiling with the original installation's gcc? If so I would
appreciate any advice on this, I can already see that the prefix $LFS 
will be needed in make and possibly configure.

Thanks in advance! 


Neoklis Kyriazis

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list