GMP and MPFR

Dennis Clarke dclarke at blastwave.org
Mon Oct 6 08:57:52 PDT 2008


> Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
>>  From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
>> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
>> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
>
> Hmmm. I read through that thread already, but I didn't see any reasoning
> for why the current approach. I don't know why installing them as
> separate packages is preferable. Some things to consider:
>
>   * Only GCC needs them.
>
>   * GCC has a mechanism built in to build them and use them the way it
> needs to. If we would just let it build them, then there's that much
> less possibility of breakage due to misconfiguration.
>
>   * I don't know if I particularly want to have two extra libs installed
> in my final (or temporary) system that I will either rarely or never use
> otherwise. I've used gpm separately before, but usually, in that
> instance if I need it, I'm totally happy getting it and installing it
> then.

Sorry to drop in after being away so long. This topic is near and dear to
my heart and I had to speak up. The libgmp and libmpfr libs are quite
valuable to the people in the scientific or mathematics world and I, for
one, use them a lot. While GCC needs them as part of the bootstrap process
and then LFS has no other need I would submit to you the idea that these
two libs are of great value to a number of technical users.

Also, there are other software packages which the user may want later on
that depend on either gmp or mpfr ( or both ) such as PHP 5 - GnuMP
Extensions and ClamAV antivirus software.

I say to you that having the gmp and mpfr packages as separate
items/packages is of value and with so little overhead required to build
them it would perhaps be best to leave them in the LFS process as is.

Dennis Clarke




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list