An idea: isolate libs [was: Pure LFS]
jbrown at kmts.ca
Thu Feb 6 14:53:51 PST 2003
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:25:36 -0600, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Most of the concerns raised have been addressed. Ryan has done loads of
> "make checking" and is convinced there is no flakeyness as hinted to by
> Jack with his Hurd builds.
That's good to hear. I'm inclined to think most of the troubles I had
(basically tarnslators that would spontaneously die, requiring a reboot)
was a result of building a system that was signifigantly different than
the host (at the time I don't think the Hurd even had support for pthreads
yet). If you've done this type of cross compile then you're probably
familiar with having to trackdown precompiled versions of some of the
programs that "don't like" to cros compile (notably bash) and the
headaches that can ensue. Once I get what I've been working on to a
certain point I plan to take the time to take a look at you hint in a bit
more detail. I definitly find it interesting.
Based on what I've been personally doing, I've been finding that the
resulting files (from compilation) stop changin around the third
iteration, if you use static linking for the first step. I'm curious to
see how the hint affects this.. Also I haven't spent much time running
make checks yet.
As I mentioned before one thing I prefer about starting
from static binaries and then just going ahead and making a second build
of the dynamic toolchain (using the first dynamic toolchain) is that the
instructions wind up being brutally simple, and don't in any way involve
trying to link to libraries residing in non standard locations or doing
anything to stop compilations from just accepting the location that they
find related files in at face value.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev