On 02/28/2013 07:51 AM, Simon Geard wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 22:45 +0100, Frans de Boer wrote: >> By the way, I looked at the CLFS site and see that things are not that >> different only that they are a couple of versions behind. That said, I >> think I will try sometime their ideas and incorporated it with the >> running LFS. > > Yeah, if you understand what the book is actually doing, it's not too > hard to mix and match the two. I'm currently running an LFS system > patched to avoid the lib64 symlinks, based on ideas pulled from the CLFS > books. > > But if you want a multilib system, your best bet is to do the opposite - > start with CLFS, and use LFS for advice on how to build newer versions > of the various packages. > > Simon. > Hi Simon,
I am getting more and more into the details of various packages as well as the whole concept of LFS and for that matter CLFS too. I don't need a full multilib system, since 99% of my programs is 64-bit. So, I stick to the VM idea to keep my system pure while learning from the CLFS book too. It's indeed not to hard to build two different libraries for the same system. CLFS is also good to give me the answers how to avoid the symlinks issue. Building libraries is not a problem, I am doing that already for many years now, the point was always to solve the circular dependencies. For the graphics/video/audio libraries and tools I have a working list, but the basic system libraries ...well I found the answers in the LFS books. So, I have two projects now: pure LFS and a second project LFS + CLFS ideas. The first one will be used to build a modern graphic environment (BLFS + my list?) and the second is for now a pure learning object. Anyhow, thanks for the attention, regards, Frans. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
