··· Mathijs ··· wrote:
about CLFS,
CLFS can be used to build a "normal" (not cross-compiled) system as
well... most instructions look the same as LFS and as far as I can see
there are not many big differences.
It takes a little longer to compile, but the build-method used is very
clean I think.
What's the point in keeping it separate from normal LFS?
LFS is x86 to x86 building. CLFS is from any OS that's unix based to
Linux, and also different architecture to different architecture.
As far as I can see CLFS is almost the same as LFS. LFS takes a little
shortcut (adjusting the toolchain) which CLFS doesn't but wouldn't it
be more efficient to use the CLFS method and just say "this part can
be skipped/shortcutted if you build for the same architecture" ?
I know there are some parts that differ (bootscripts, udev-stuff),
where both teams have different opinions, but isn't it wiser to sort
things out at branch-level instead of project level? just like the
alphabetical stuff, and the udev_update stuff.
Are there any plans to merge CLFS and LFS in the near- or distant future?
No, the build techniques used in CLFS 2.0 will be radically different
from that of LFS and the current CLFS. We will be doing a complete
sysroot type of build.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
