jh-branch

[Alexander E. Patrakov]

I wrote:
> * 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.
An untested idea: build binutils-pass1 and gcc-pass1 as cross-tools (as 
explained in CLFS), cross-compile glibc as explained in CLFS, build 
native-to-new-glibc binutils and gcc using our cross-tools, and continue 
with the "native" method. This way (if this happens to work), we won't 
rely on compatibility of anything we build with the host's glibc, and 
will still be able to use the advantage that we can run the compiled 
binaries.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov