Jeremy Utley wrote: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > >> The need to reboot and build from the console is an overwhelmingly >> big new difference. To the point that I would have to find a different >> build method than what Jim described.
> And that need only arises if you are building from a different arch from > your host. For example - my current PPC machine is a terribly slow 120 > Mhz 604 processor. Building current LFS 6 on that machine takes nearly > a week of work to get done. What if I could build a large portion of > that on my nice fast X86_64 machine? That would be a good thing. For > you, the situation is different - you build strictly on x86-class > machines - there would be no need for you to reboot, as was pointed out > by Ryan. You could simply chroot into $LFS and continue on your way. > > There's a lot of plusses to this build, and very few downfalls, when you > really sit down to think about it. Mentioning the need for the reboot > was a good thing, but it's important to know WHY that becomes essential > - because if we're building for a different arch, the binaries we create > as part of the initial tools will not run on the host. If those > binaries will run, there's absolutely no need to reboot. My objection was to the comment that rebooting was mandatory. If instructions are given to give the user a choice and to explain the pros and cons, I do not object. I would point out that most people think of a cross compile as changing architectures. That really only happens once. After the port to the new arctitecture, I think most would prefer to work in chroot environment. I know I certainly would. BTW, I will need to do this eventually. My new box is an Intel 86_64 arctitecture so I will want to build it as a 64 bit system. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
