compile speed on lfs 5.0

mrnobby no at spam.please
Sat May 8 02:26:56 PDT 2004


"Ken Moffat" <ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0405072356130.17167 at ppg_penguin...
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Kevin Alm wrote:


>LOL.  If it was 2.96, it needs to be updated to <fx> scratches head
></fx> at least -80 if my memory serves, or basically as late as you can
>find in an rpm on a mirror somewhere.  And that's just for building 2.4
>kernels!  The mirror at ftp.mirror.ac.uk is showing RPMs for 2.96-54
for
>7.0 and 2.96-98 for 7.2.  Don't know if the -98 rpm will apply to 7.0,
>but if you want to use 7.0 you have three choices -
>
>a) use it as-is, and expect breakages.
>b) use the latest available 2.96, either by cleanly upgrading the rpm,
>or by compiling it from the srpm.
>c) compile gcc-2.95.3 - as long as you bootstrap it, 2.96 should be
able
>to build it ok.
Hmm, I'm currently building LFS on a i386, and have built it
(apparently) successfully on a i486, the P-233MMX in question, an
K6-2-500, an Athlon 1200, and an Athlon 2x MP-2400. Now, when I am
recompiling with LFS as the host, surely the original gcc version does
not matter? Isnt the temporary system supposed to weed out any
inconsistencies?

Mr Nobby.





More information about the lfs-support mailing list