DJ Lucas wrote:
> From what I've seen of it, I guess there is no concept of
> {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 or /usr/include64 like there is for the lib dirs (or
> the alternate). I mean a total separation of the system, side by side
> would be ideal IMO. Unfortunately I am just not able to make any useful
> comments on the rest of your post yet. Best I can do is point you to
> Jeremy's book. I believe this is the correct link:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-JH/
Ouch! April 23rd!
> It likely will provide a baseline for which LFS follows (or even much
> taken verbatim). At a casual glance, I notice the use of 'uname -m' a
> few times, which probably means the building arch only. Jeremy, care to
> jump in here with where you were headed?
So yeah. That branch allows successful building of 64-bit or 32-bit
only, no multilib. It tries to be as unconcerned with the target arch as
possible, but of course that will all fall down when it comes to boot
loader and other specifics. The way it works for 64-bit is that it
simply provides a symlink for {,/usr}/lib64 -> {,/usr}/lib. As you say,
if LSB compliance is a major goal, then perhaps this method should be
rethought.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
