jh-branch

[Alexander E. Patrakov]

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>   The HJL Binutils so far seems to work better with these versions of GCC and Glibc.)
>   
I don't buy this explanation alone. The fact is that you can't build LFS 
(or DIY) with FSF binutils if you are on x86_64 and start from a new 
host such as Debian Lenny x86_64.

One side note: CLFS works even in this "downgrade" scenario - so maybe 
we should declare the LFS/DIY "native build" technique non-working and 
insufficient for stable releases (because they are more than likely to 
face this "downgrade" problem), and abandon it (or somehow modify it so 
that it begins to work in this scenario)? I.e.: just upgrading binutils 
is not a good fix, because it doesn't prevent the "just-compiled ld 
doesn't recognize /lib/libc.so.6 file format" problem from reappearing 
in the future.

Note that CLFS is also not ideal:

 * LFS relies (more than CLFS) on the ability of the new tools to link 
against the host's glibc (until we adjust them),
 * while CLFS relies (more than LFS) on the host non-toolchain programs, 
because it can't add just-compiled programs to $PATH.

And there are even bugs in CLFS now: installation of "file" into 
/cross-tools is useless, because binutils ./configure script looks for 
/usr/bin/file unconditionally (fix: adjust the ./configure script).

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov