On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Greg Schafer wrote:
> Because that way lies madness (as has been discussed many times before).
>
> IMHO, a saner solution is a 32-bit "build" chroot and a package manger.
Eh, I was thinking of a hybrid of LFS, CLFS and DIY for multilib. What
do you think of that?
W
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:32:28 -0500, William Immendorf wrote:
> This has got me thinking: If we are going to build a 32-bit Glibc for
> multilib LFS, why don't we do a fully multilib system for 64-bit, like
> how CLFS does it?
Because that way lies madness (as has been discussed many times before)
Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:23:53 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> A 32-bit libc is a consideration. I don't know how to do that yet.
>
> I lied. It's actually 2 extra packages :-/
>
> One needs to build a 32-bit libc in Ch 5 too (so that GCC can be multilib)
>
> This is all co
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:23:53 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> A 32-bit libc is a consideration. I don't know how to do that yet.
I lied. It's actually 2 extra packages :-/
One needs to build a 32-bit libc in Ch 5 too (so that GCC can be multilib)
This is all covered in the DIY Refbuild (packages a
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> A 32-bit libc is a consideration. I don't know how to do that yet. I've only
> had a 64-bit system for a week. Looking at grub-0.97, it also uses ncurses,
> so
> I think we'd need a 32bit version of that too.
This has got me thinking: If we
Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:27:56 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> From a 64 bit system, we'd need to use cross compile techniques for
>> these files
>> so they don't try to use 64-bit addresses.
>
> Umm, what's wrong with installing a 32-bit libc?
>
> It's 1 extra package, it
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:27:56 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> From a 64 bit system, we'd need to use cross compile techniques for
> these files
> so they don't try to use 64-bit addresses.
Umm, what's wrong with installing a 32-bit libc?
It's 1 extra package, it solves the grub problem, and it all
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:34:31 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> The latest version of e2fsprogs now passes all tests on LFS-6.5-64.
>
> Good news! Out of interest, which boot loader are you using on your 64-bit
> machine?
The host, ubuntu, installed grub-0.97. I didn't feel
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:34:31 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The latest version of e2fsprogs now passes all tests on LFS-6.5-64.
Good news! Out of interest, which boot loader are you using on your 64-bit
machine?
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://
The latest version of e2fsprogs now passes all tests on LFS-6.5-64.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
10 matches
Mail list logo
