{B,C}LFS State of Things (was Re: SVN-20070706: ...)

[George Boudreau]

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:38:30AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. I think just to get started on handling multiple
>> arches in LFS, we should focus on non-multilib 64 and just symlink
>> /lib -> /lib64. Hopefully it doesn't bite elsewhere, but I think it's
>> the fastest way to get up and running. Multilib is definitely the way
>> to go, but I think it's more important to just get a 64 bit build in
>> before handling the much larger case. Then again, I haven't done
>> anything, so this is just speculation.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I believe I have the necessary changes worked through in a working copy
> of the x86_64 branch I made the other day. Due to time constraints I
> haven't been able to finish a full build, but I believe what is there
> will work. I do plan on testing it fully before I commit any changes,
> but I figured I'd show what I have and give someone else the opportunity
> to build it if they like and/or look for any obvious errors.
> 
> Here's the rendered book:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-x86_64
  Should we add lfs-x86_64 to to jhalfs now or wait a few weeks/months? 
I assume there will be a multi-lib version after all objections/ideas 
have been aired. (planning ahead for jhalfs)
> 
> And here's the current diff (so you can see the changes in a glance):
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/x86_64-changes.diff
> 
> The two gcc pure64 patches come from CLFS.
> 
> --
> JH