An idea: isolate libs [was: Pure LFS]

Steve Martin srm at netcomuk.co.uk
Sat Feb 8 14:50:43 PST 2003


On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 20:08, Rui Ferreira wrote:
> Steve Martin wrote:
> >>snip loads of interesting stuff<
> 
> Interesting? It was the same thing that you wrote but in the way I saw it!
> 
Yes it was.
> > the bootstrap over the three phases.  Also I would build glibc with just
> > the linux headers at every pass which, according to the glibc docs,
> > removes any dependancy on any pre-existing c library, so chrooting is
> > unnecessary.
> 
> But you do need to staticly compile the systems utilities so that they 
> continue to work after the library to which they were compiled against is 
> gone, right?
> 
> Chrooting seems unnecessary, but isn't it safer or pure to start with the 
> cleanest, most controled environment possible?
> 
The first pass is static as per Greg and Ryans' instructions, the
remaining passes are dynamic, after all they are againt the first pass
glibc.  The remainder of chapter 5 should be dynamic.  Chrooting is
totally unnecessary. 
-- 
Steve Martin <srm at netcomuk.co.uk>

Still can't think of anything witty to write here.
-- 
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 mailing list