> Philipp Christian Loewner wrote: >> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate >> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail >> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage. > > Hmmm. I read through that thread already, but I didn't see any reasoning > for why the current approach. I don't know why installing them as > separate packages is preferable. Some things to consider: > > * Only GCC needs them. > > * GCC has a mechanism built in to build them and use them the way it > needs to. If we would just let it build them, then there's that much > less possibility of breakage due to misconfiguration. > > * I don't know if I particularly want to have two extra libs installed > in my final (or temporary) system that I will either rarely or never use > otherwise. I've used gpm separately before, but usually, in that > instance if I need it, I'm totally happy getting it and installing it > then.
Sorry to drop in after being away so long. This topic is near and dear to my heart and I had to speak up. The libgmp and libmpfr libs are quite valuable to the people in the scientific or mathematics world and I, for one, use them a lot. While GCC needs them as part of the bootstrap process and then LFS has no other need I would submit to you the idea that these two libs are of great value to a number of technical users. Also, there are other software packages which the user may want later on that depend on either gmp or mpfr ( or both ) such as PHP 5 - GnuMP Extensions and ClamAV antivirus software. I say to you that having the gmp and mpfr packages as separate items/packages is of value and with so little overhead required to build them it would perhaps be best to leave them in the LFS process as is. Dennis Clarke -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
