Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Can somebody do me a favour and give me both a high overview and a
> detailed technical nitty-gritty overview of those three (are there
> more?) methods - how they compare to each other.
You've summarized it pretty well. What is currently in trunk is based on
current DI
Hi,
I'm finding myself a little lost in the most recent discussion (subject
"Adapting LFS SVN for multilib"). After a couple of tangents I think we
can stand to take a few steps back and get back to the matter at hand.
Allow me to summarize what I think is going on. It'll likely help
explain w
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I can't take one individuals word on things, because frankly I don't
> trust some I can't validate myself.
Trust has very little to do with it, but I agree. Any scientific investigation
has to provide enough details to be able to duplicate the results. To do this,
we hav
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:19:22 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> I just want to see these test results and run the tests myself to see
> what this is all about. I don't use jhalfs, and neither does most of
> the people who work on CLFS.
>
> I can't take one individuals word on things, because frankly I
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Jim,
>
> What is it, exactly, you're after? Not wishing to patronize, but ICA
> is just the process of compiling LFS from an LFS host and comparing
> the binaries on the LFS host and the newly built LFS-from-LFS system.
>
> There's obviously some differences that can be ex
Hi guys,
You all know that saying "time flies when you're having fun," right?
The idea behind LFS first came to be in the first few months of 1999.
The exact date has since been lost so I've taken to assume January for
convenience reasons.
This means that with a 2-3 month margin of error we ha
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:28:15 -0800, Jim Gifford wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> I've already said the CLFS Sysroot build is closest in spirit to how
>> sysroot is meant to work. But
>>
>> 1) it's cross compilation and therefore useless as a mainstream build
>> 2) it fails ICA verification dismal
Greg Schafer wrote:
> I've already said the CLFS Sysroot build is closest in spirit to how
> sysroot is meant to work. But
>
> 1) it's cross compilation and therefore useless as a mainstream build
> 2) it fails ICA verification dismally
>
> Regards
> Greg
>
Again Greg provide us more informat
Ryan Oliver wrote:
> We all know what sysroot is for.
>
> All sysroot does is shift the search paths underneath the sysroot, no
> more, no less.
Well, yes. But Sysroot is specifically for *root* file systems. Here's
another data point from the GCC man/info/web docs:
"--sysroot=dir
Use dir
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Karl McClendon wrote:
> One such issue is when building glibc. It fails quickly with awk script
> errors. After some hunting I learned that Ubuntu does not come with gawk, it
> comes with mawk, which is the reason for the error. After installing gawk
> the bu
My host OS is current Ubuntu 8.10 and I have run across several issues due to
the host environment.
One such issue is when building glibc. It fails quickly with awk script
errors. After some hunting I learned that Ubuntu does not come with gawk, it
comes with mawk, which is the reason for the
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Ryan Oliver wrote:
>
>
>> The sysroot build is "misused" in pretty much the same way the original
>> native plfs toolchain was "misused".
>>
>
> Just another data point for the record.
>
> Here, a senior toolchain person confirms how sysroot is meant to be used
> (rea
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Sidenote: Now that some toolchain devs are apparently using *native*
> sysroot builds, there is a temptation to pursue a whole new build method
> that bypasses most of Ch 5. However, we would most certainly lose a lot of
> the advantages of the current 2-phase approach, so gut
13 matches
Mail list logo
