An idea: isolate libs [was: Pure LFS]

Rui Ferreira ruifmferreira at
Sat Feb 8 17:40:11 PST 2003

Steve Martin wrote:

>> 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.

That chapter 5 story confuses me (or keeps us from being in syncronization)!

I call ch.5 to all the work that is done in the hosts environment and ch.6 
when we leave it behind and start working only with what we have already 
made (compiled). So, in my point of view, it goes like:

- lfs ch.5 is the same;
        static-binutils:  A(a(abc)b(abc)c(abc))
        static-gcc:       B(a(abc)b(abc)c(abc))
- chroot;
- linux headers;
- glibc, binutils, gcc;
        1st-glibc:        C(A(abc)B(aBc)-(---))
        dynamic-binutils: A(A(abc)B(aBc)C(AB-))
        dynamic-gcc:      B(A(ABC)B(aBc)C(AB-))
- glibc, binutils, gcc;
        2nd-glibc:        C(A(ABC)B(ABC)C(AB-))
        final-binutils:   A(A(ABC)B(ABC)C(ABC))
        final-gcc:        B(A(ABC)B(ABC)C(ABC))
- glibc;
        final-glibc:      C(A(ABC)B(ABC)C(ABC))
- the rest of lfs ch.6 (minus the final glibc build)

Greg mentioned being anal! Well, this is brutal force ;p

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list