SVN-20070706: Step 5.7 Adjusting the Toolchain

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Fri Jul 13 18:57:15 PDT 2007


Craig Jackson wrote:

> It seems futile for me to attempt
> to test for LFS for the simple fact that the x86 architecture's days
> are limited.  You can barely buy a new system off the retail shelf
> that isn't at least a single-core athlon64.

Um, you seem to be talking as if one must run a 64-bit OS on 64-bit
hardware. That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. IMHO 32-bit OS'es
running on 64-bit hardware are still the norm. See this recent post from
an Intel employee for example:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/11/694

Not only that, you also seem to be implying the days of the LFS *build
method* are limited. I might be biased but I can assure you that the basic
idea of the LFS/DIY build method works fine on x86, ppc and x86_64 for
*NATIVE* building of Glibc based systems and that it has stood the test of
time. Of course, it doesn't cope with multilib nor x86 -> x86_64
bootstraps but that is where cross compilation comes in handy. I will not
go into the many drawbacks of cross versus native because it's all been
said before.

I agree with Dan. It's probably time to implement a native non-multilib
x86_64 build as an option for LFS. But to keep everything compatible with
x86, you'll probably need the lib -> lib64 symlinks which mirrors the
practice of some distros and also what I've done in the DIY Refbuild.

Regards
Greg
-- 
http://www.diy-linux.org/




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list