Re: Proposing a new LFS release

2010-01-25 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Greg Schafer wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:39:13 +0100, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote: > >> what kind of buildings can do a user exactly >> with this stable (6.6)? From 64 to 64 bits? From 32 to 32? Or 32 to 64? > > Actually, the underlying build method supports all combinations: > > 32->32 > 64

Re: Proposing a new LFS release

2010-01-25 Thread Greg Schafer
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:39:13 +0100, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote: > what kind of buildings can do a user exactly > with this stable (6.6)? From 64 to 64 bits? From 32 to 32? Or 32 to 64? Actually, the underlying build method supports all combinations: 32->32 64->64 32->64 64->32[*] (* the last o

Re: Proposing a new LFS release

2010-01-25 Thread Ken Moffat
2010/1/25 Bruce Dubbs : > Thanks to Matt's hard work, it looks like the -dev version of the book > now has over half the packages updated from the current stable release. > > There only a couple of minor tickets outstanding.  We are at > Linux-2.6.32 which has been designated for long term support.

Re: Proposing a new LFS release

2010-01-25 Thread Aleksandar Kuktin
>On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:42:58 -0600 >Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote: > > ok thanks for this answer. I'll remember that 32-32 64-64, it will > > be easier for me to solve some problems. > > > > For multilib, I understand it'll be never done lfs. ok. I'm pleased > > with knowing