plans and wishes
alex at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jan 15 14:33:10 PST 2004
Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> > Initial reasoning was that we can't trust anything on the host
> > whatsoever.
> And that still holds AFAICT.
Yet we use the make and sed and gawk and grep and cmp and install, and
what not, from the host to compile and install Binutils, GCC, Glibc and
Coreutils, the most basic building blocks of the temporary system. If
those programs are good enough for the basic toolchain, then they are
good enough for the rest of the tools too, I should think.
> > Chapter 6 should try to accomplish the same thing, remove our dependence
> > on /tools as much as humanly possible early on in the piece...
I would like that, see http://linuxfromscratch.org/~alex/building.html.
But as Greg said, it isn't needed: the things in /tools are good enough.
> And now let's hear a rational reason from someone that
> alphabetic order is desirable.
1) When looking for a package, it's easier to find.
2) A chaotic order _without_ giving a good reason is... plain silly.
3) It highlights some of the dependencies as some packages are out of
order. (Of course not all essential dependencies are shown, as some
happen to be alphabetical, but they could be mentioned somehere.)
> > Whatever we choose, we'll have to set a minimum spec linux distro
> > to build from for testing ( I use RH6.x, after upgrading the hosts
> > make to 3.80 )
Including a list of minimum required versions wouldn't be a bad idea.
I've been able to build an LFS4.8 system (a half-updated 4.1) using
gcc 2.95.2, binutils 2.9.5, glibc 2.1.3, make 3.79.1 (Suse 7.0).
More information about the lfs-dev