On 7/13/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything > > other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other > > architectures. > > Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any LFS or BLFS > developers that think non-x86 is unsupportable. We have chosen to keep > those books x86 only due to the personal preferences, the hardware > available to them, and a preference of wanting to use the simplest > instructions possible without IF $arch == 'x' constructs. We have no > problems with pointing people to CLFS when it is appropriate.
I would actually really like to add x86_64 (non-multilib to start) support to LFS and BLFS. It's becoming increasingly uncommon to even be able to purchase a non-64bit processor at this point. We can basically copy what Greg's done on DIY (which is where I go looking for native toolchain stuff anyway), and maybe we could use Manuel's XSLfoo to not have a whole bunch of $ARCH conditionals. That's what I think, anyway. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
