Thinking forward LFS-7.0

Andrew Benton b3nton at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 13:36:10 PDT 2011


On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:04:03 -0400
"+Jan" <jonathan.oksman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Benton <b3nton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib
> > => /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and
> > no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it just looks like an ugly
> > hack. I'd much rather (for aesthetic reasons) do away with
> > {/usr,}/lib64 if I could.
> >
> >
> I did this on my last build of LFS a few months ago before my laptop's
> charger decided to break down.  It requires a fair bit of attention to make
> sure your toolchain is built properly but once you get past GCC and Glibc
> then most LFS packages build nicely.
> 
> The real issue is when you run into a package that has specific case
> scenario for detecting 64-bit.  Some packages use their own code that makes
> a lot of assumptions about multilib and the lib64 path.  I'm going from
> memory here but I remember one package having that issue in LFS, and I'm
> certain you would run into other real world scenarios beyond a basic system.
> 
> The solution to problems like these require a lot more effort than just
> ignoring a lib64 symlink.

Thanks for the reply. It's encouraging to know that it's doable. I may
have some time next week to have a crack at it. Thanks!

Andy



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list