Future plans for xLFS

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Mon Jun 5 12:04:55 PDT 2006


··· Mathijs ··· wrote:
> about CLFS,
> CLFS can be used to build a "normal" (not cross-compiled) system as 
> well... most instructions look the same as LFS and as far as I can see 
> there are not many big differences.
> It takes a little longer to compile, but the build-method used is very 
> clean I think.
> What's the point in keeping it separate from normal LFS?
LFS is x86 to x86 building. CLFS is from any OS that's unix based to 
Linux, and also different architecture to different architecture.
> As far as I can see CLFS is almost the same as LFS. LFS takes a little 
> shortcut (adjusting the toolchain) which CLFS doesn't but wouldn't it 
> be more efficient to use the CLFS method and just say "this part can 
> be skipped/shortcutted if you build for the same architecture" ?
> I know there are some parts that differ (bootscripts, udev-stuff), 
> where both teams have different opinions, but isn't it wiser to sort 
> things out at branch-level instead of project level? just like the 
> alphabetical stuff, and the udev_update stuff.
> Are there any plans to merge CLFS and LFS in the near- or distant future?
No, the build techniques used in CLFS 2.0 will be radically different 
from that of LFS and the current CLFS. We will be doing a complete 
sysroot type of build.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list