Pure LFS Hint - good to go

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Thu Feb 20 18:56:38 PST 2003


On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:57:10AM -0700, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> I'm actually hoping to add it to CVS very soon now. It will wait for a few 
> more weeks for logistic reasons (the prime one being that I'm moving in a few 
> days and won't have an Internet connection for about week after I move. More 
> on this in a separate email).

Good, coz we need more time to get it finished :-)

> 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?

Gerard, have you had a good look at the hint yet? There are some possible
obstacles to getting it into the book. Number one, due to more rebuilds and
a few more Ch 5 packages, the whole process will take a lot longer. There is
also the "make check" stuff in there which really blows out the time even
more.

Everything we do in the hint is not absolutely essential. Some stuff is just
being super cautious and could be dropped. When the pure_lfs project first
started, I discussed with Ryan the possibility of using the shorter doc as a
"stepping stone" to full blown purity. It's still a possibility.

Here is a quick summation of how I envisaged the shorter doc would work:-

Ch 5:
 - still use /stage1
 - still put /stage1/bin at the head of the PATH
 - binutils static
 - gcc static
 - glibc
 - adjust the gcc specs
 - rest of Ch 5 shared (only add ncurses, not gettext nor perl)

Ch 6:
 - glibc (with the perl patch)
 - readjust the gcc specs
 - binutils
 - gcc
 - rest of normal Ch 6

It's not that different to current LFS. It should work, but definitely won't
be as anal as the hint, and it would instantly solve a lot of the current
LFS gripes.

Anyway, I prefer full blown purity so back to the hint for me :-)

Greg
-- 
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