[lfs-dev] Ubuntu to Stop Offering 32-Bit ISO Images
conathan at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 13:13:05 PDT 2017
On 29 September 2017 at 10:09, A. Wan <jm at mokwan.com> wrote:
> On Fri, September 29, 2017 09:10, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I noticed this today. The question is whether we should stop direct
>> support of 32-bit CPUs. We do very little testing on 32-bit systems and
>> it takes a loooong time to build on those systems. The problem may not be
>> LFS, but AFAIK, we do not do comprehensive BLFS testing on 32-bit CPUs.
>> I am of mixed minds. One one hand if the commercial distros are removing
>> support, having it in LFS is a service for those who want a modern system
>> on a 32-bit system. On the other, in most cases users would really want
>> to do a cross build from a 64-bit system to a 32-bit system and logical
>> place is then CLFS.
>> Removing support would be relatively easy. we have a few paragraphs about
>> architecture and a few if statements, but the changes would not be
>> We could create a hint for 32-bit systems for those few that would want to
>> do a 32-bit build.
>> -- Bruce
>> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
>> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> Bad news for me :( Recently I needed a 32 bit boot disk. Instead of
> bothering with CLFS I ran Ubuntu 32bit CD in a virtual machine just so that
> I can build "vanilla" LFS.
> I can't disagree that any recent version of LFS takes forever to build on 32
> bit machines...
I believe right now our stance is "x86_64 first", (so 32bit details
don't hurt having if not in the way). I suppose it all comes down to
maintenance of the 32bit. Personally I'd have no complaints about LFS
being untested in a 32bit environment prior to release if that was the
major part of the maintenance burden.
Myself personally, I never plan on using LFS on 32bit only hardware
ever again, (Although still have some older 32bit hardware laying
around, I sometimes restore hardware, but I'd choose something like
Xubuntu for that usually [yes I know, they're done it])
But on the other hand, I do compile 32bit versions of libraries still
(Not all, just choice ones) for wine. Usually I try to match the
lfs/blfs instructions where possible and consult cblfs (assuming it's
compatible enough) for tweaks. It's been convienent when the 32bit
tweaks are there.
Suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if that was lost though.
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Timezone: PST (-8)
More information about the lfs-dev