Craig Jackson wrote: > It seems futile for me to attempt > to test for LFS for the simple fact that the x86 architecture's days > are limited. You can barely buy a new system off the retail shelf > that isn't at least a single-core athlon64.
Um, you seem to be talking as if one must run a 64-bit OS on 64-bit hardware. That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. IMHO 32-bit OS'es running on 64-bit hardware are still the norm. See this recent post from an Intel employee for example: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/11/694 Not only that, you also seem to be implying the days of the LFS *build method* are limited. I might be biased but I can assure you that the basic idea of the LFS/DIY build method works fine on x86, ppc and x86_64 for *NATIVE* building of Glibc based systems and that it has stood the test of time. Of course, it doesn't cope with multilib nor x86 -> x86_64 bootstraps but that is where cross compilation comes in handy. I will not go into the many drawbacks of cross versus native because it's all been said before. I agree with Dan. It's probably time to implement a native non-multilib x86_64 build as an option for LFS. But to keep everything compatible with x86, you'll probably need the lib -> lib64 symlinks which mirrors the practice of some distros and also what I've done in the DIY Refbuild. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
