compile speed on lfs 5.0
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
>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
>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
More information about the lfs-support