> - Original Message -
> From: "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Safer linux-headers install
>
>
>> Unless it's going to be accepted upstream, then I'm not really
>> interested in adding a patc
> 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:
I'm not implying that, in fact i completely agree
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs 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 u
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> This should not spark a flame war, you make a very concise and to the
> point statement/question that deserves discussion. However, the CLFS
> fork was mostly due to some dev's dissatisfaction with the decisions
> that were made a *long* time ago. It's my belief there is sti
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
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs 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 kno
Craig Jackson wrote these words on 07/13/07 18:02 CST:
> I don't know how to say this
> delicately, so I will just say it.
And being one that appreciates such candor, I applaud your message.
> It seems futile for me to attempt
> to test for LFS for the simple fact that the x86 architecture's da
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 o
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 o
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 ha
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:49:06PM -0600, Jon Fullmer wrote:
> I don't understand. I'm aware of CLFS (and even for the PowerPC).
> This is assuming I want to build a system on a platform other than
> its destined platform. I'm actually building it on a PowerPC box
> running LFS-6.2. That's
Jon Fullmer wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
> so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
>
> Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
> generate the specs file:
>
> gcc -dumpspecs | sed '[EMAIL PROT
12 matches
Mail list logo
