Build is verified!

Ian Molton spyro at f2s.com
Thu Mar 20 20:55:41 PST 2003


On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:58:20 +0000 (UTC)
Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:

> > Irrelevant, since that would be stuff like sed/awk. the toolchain
> > used and libs etc. would all be the cross compiled ones...
> 
> It depends on what the base system you are coming from is, and whether
> the tools supplied on the host OS have all the available functionality
> required.
> Not always the case...

fair comment, but you'll agree that their fucntionality isnt likely to
make a broken build - more likely it'll either work perfectly or fail
completely, I think.
 
> Less margin for error the current (PLFS) way...

>From the rest of your description, yes, looks like it.

> > You half succeeded in convincing me of your point. ;-) (one day, I
> > intend to cross compile LFS from ARM to X86, just to see what breaks
> > ;-)
> 
> Lots... I started down this road a while ago, still trying to get
> something relatively workable building from Solaris 2.8 to test the
> build on sparc ( I could just stick a RH on there but where's the fun
> in that ;-) )

I'll have an opportunity to try sometime soon :)

> A hint, save yourself a lot of pain, use ash not bash :-)

Funny - I've crosscompiled bash before now and it worked fine. weird.
 
> > > That'd be far too convoluted for the book...
> >
> > maybe...
> 
> You could never write a generic cross-compile build, only a guideline
> on what steps to take and what to look out for to achieve it... far
> too many variables...

Thinking more about it, you're probably right on that one, although it
really shouldnt be that way ;-/
 
> good to get the brain working again on something other than
> shell scripts :-)

LOL :)
-- 
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