Jim Gifford wrote these words on 04/18/05 16:25 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >>I mean, using the new method versus the current method, you still >>end up with the same exact end product, right? > > Actually, you get a cleaner toolchain, from my experience with this > process and a much more minimal system if you so desire.
Please, Jim, for me and I'm sure there are others that want to know the same thing, can you explain *in a technical manner* how the toolchain could be any "cleaner"? I'm thinking byte-for-byte you end up with the same thing, right? You can already build a more minimal system, by omitting things you know aren't needed and/or removing them after installation, so this doesn't play into the picture for me. I would like someone to explain the *technical* difference in the final binaries. I don't need to know the methodology, just how one set of glibc/binutils/gcc and others will differ from ones that are created using the old method. Thanks in advance, as I know there is some work involved putting this information out, but I know I would appreciate it, as I'm sure many others would as well. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 16:33:01 up 16 days, 16:06, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
