Pure LFS Hint - good to go

Tushar Teredesai tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Feb 20 09:07:11 PST 2003


Gerard Beekmans wrote:

>>I'm still tempted to write a shorter version which doesn't go into as much
>>detail and doesn't take as much care, but still utilises all the same
>>principles. This shorter version could go into the book in a snap and would
>>instantly be a huge win over current LFS.
>>    
>>
>Ok that doens't sit well with me. It sounds to me as though that shorted 
>document would cut some corners (you actually uses that phrase (shorter doc 
>will cut corners)a while ago). What will be the impact of the shorter 
>version? If the short version goes in the book, would people still be 
>interested in the longer version in the form of a hint?
>  
>
I agree, the hint is excellent as is. The only two shortcuts that could 
be taken are not recompilng binutils and gcc dynamically after compiling 
glibc in Ch 5, but don't think it is good avoiding it.

(For Greg) The hint mentions that the Pass 1 static gcc compilation can 
be skipped if the host gcc is atleast 3.2. But it is not optional, coz 
if someone skip's that step, they will be unable to adjust the gcc spec 
file to lock in the newly compiled glibc. Though the gcc recompile 
immediately after adjusting the spec file ensures that the new glibc is 
used. So maybe adjusting the spec file after the glibc compile is redundant.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
   http://www.geocities.com/tushar/


-- 
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