TheOldFellow wrote: > The increased > complexity of the cross-lfs method has zero benefit in x86 AFAICS. > > I'm not saying that cross-lfs isn't a great bit of work, it's just that > I don't see that it has any application to 95% of folk building LFS for > the first time, and the 5% who need a cross method could reasonably read > a hint. > > I really don't feel comfortable forcing the toolchain to build a cross > toolset when it isn't necessary. I was very keen to see if there was an > advantage to using the cross method, but after experimenting with it, I > have come to this differing view. > > Some people may feel betrayed by this, but Randy was brave enough to go > against the trend and I feel I have to support him.
I would also point out that the cross build method is necessary only once per architecture. One you have a system built on a specific arctitecture, a user can revert to the current method for a subsequent build. Once a user can boot into Linux using the native arctitecture, the cross build method becomes moot. A agree with Richard that the work being done is very nice. I just feel it is a specialized technique that should not be the focus of the main stream book. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
