An idea: isolate libs [was: Pure LFS]

jsmaby at virgo.umeche.maine.edu jsmaby at virgo.umeche.maine.edu
Sun Feb 9 17:38:48 PST 2003


> Where is this better then the old way of just make lfs twice?

Or better yet, three times.

> I think that this is all about reaching purity with the minimum required
> effort.
> If we can stablish that the only packages that need to be pure to produce a 
> pure system are binutils, gcc and glibc, then, we'll not need to compile 
> anything else - just work with their static versions all the way.
> And also, how and how many times do they need to bootstrap (the toolchain).

I did some analysis of this a while back:
http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002/12/0639.html
and concluded that binutils was not actually an issue; just glibc and gcc;
gcc being the worse of the two (odd, since it's the only package that
bootstraps just to avoid the problem).

My method was better than just looking at sizes; actually taking a diff -r
of the systems.  I suggest that similar be done for this new pure LFS idea.
It would even be nice to fine a nice simple command to check for differences
(like a big find command maybe), and make the check part of building, so
that one can keep rebuilding stage1 until it stops changing.  That would
mean one unnecessary build, but would give one piece of mind (what if the
starting distro is exceptionally braindead, and needs 5 bootstraps?).

-James Smaby
-- 
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