Greg Schafer wrote:
Jeremy Utley wrote:
Greg's still focusing on strictly x86 builds
The key difference is that I only publish what I can test. Think about it.
Your claims of LFS "support" for other arches up until now is bogus.
But the multi-arch XML approach is a good move.
Then my LFS
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Greg's still focusing on strictly x86 builds
The key difference is that I only publish what I can test. Think about it.
Your claims of LFS "support" for other arches up until now is bogus.
But the multi-arch XML approach is a good move.
> I followed Greg's work for quite s
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for
>>>the kernel builds etc
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> I'm just guessing here, but I would bet that it'll be similar to the gcc
> 2.95 / gcc 3.X upgrade. The
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for
>> the kernel builds etc
>
> Why?
I'm just guessing here, but I would bet that it'll be similar to the gcc
2.95 / gcc 3.X upgrade. The kernel documentation said to use 2.95
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for
the kernel builds etc
Why?
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
TheOldFellow wrote:
>Jeremy Utley wrote:
>> TheOldFellow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a
>dicussion.
>
>> If you like examining scripts for ideas, try taking a look at
>these:
>>
>> svn co svn://be-linux.org/cross-lfs/cross-lfs/trunk cross-lfs
>
>J
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a dicussion.
> If you like examining scripts for ideas, try taking a look at these:
>
> svn co svn://be-linux.org/cross-lfs/cross-lfs/trunk cross-lfs
Jeremy,
Thanks, I've DLed that.
Wh
TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a dicussion.
> I do not propose that you just copy the script - the LFS aims are quite
>different from Greg's - no reason you can't examine them for good ideas
>though.
>
>
With the new build process being worked
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>> However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
>> And I only have i686 boxes :-(
>
>
> This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to.
I bet my skin is tougher than yours!
But, if you don't
> like the length o
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
>>Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
>>mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
>
>
> On-Line System? Wow. I would have
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Um. No... there's still the trunk branch
Did I just say 'trunk branch'? Ugh. Someone slap me upside the head
please...
--
Jeremy H.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Utley wrote:
And the simple
fact is, GCC 4.0 is not quite yet ready for integration into the LFS
book - it probably won't be until 4.0.3 or thereabouts.
But still, it would be nice to have a crack at chewing on the bugs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://ww
Jeremy Utley wrote:
But there's still the lengthy community decision process to deal with
before it makes it into rendered XML. That was the whole crux of the
Unstable branch of LFS, so those of us who were interested in playing
with that stuff could do so easily. Now that's gone :( And the s
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
On-Line System? Wow. I would have given a lot fo
Matthew Burgess wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to. But, if you
don't like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS
then post
TheOldFellow wrote:
However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down.
And I only have i686 boxes :-(
This isn't meant to sound as harsh as it's going to. But, if you don't
like the length of time it takes to get new technology into LFS then
post *patches* to the XML bo
TheOldFellow wrote:
> Actually, since you ask, 35 years ago I had such fun with a teletype,
> Dartmouth College Basic (I still have the manual) and a time-sharing
> mainframe (Kent On-Line System), that I joined the industry.
On-Line System? Wow. I would have given a lot for that capability i
Jeremy Utley wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>>
>> Fair comment. My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was
>> interested in gcc-4 had the links in. But thanks for repeating them.
>> I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS forwards.
>>
>>
> It won't be long before
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote these words on 04/16/05 14:12 CST:
>
>
>>I had no difficulty building a reasonably stable gcc-4/glibc-2.3.5
>>system that carried BLFS with just a few patches all the way up to a
>>gnome build (with a few oddities in gnome, I admit, but that's usual
>>wi
TheOldFellow wrote these words on 04/16/05 14:12 CST:
> I had no difficulty building a reasonably stable gcc-4/glibc-2.3.5
> system that carried BLFS with just a few patches all the way up to a
> gnome build (with a few oddities in gnome, I admit, but that's usual
> with my gnome builds) plus the
TheOldFellow wrote:
Fair comment. My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was
interested in gcc-4 had the links in. But thanks for repeating them.
I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS forwards.
It won't be long before LFS is far beyond Greg's build process. Gr
Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Once I'm done with the remaining 6.1 issues I'll set up a branch for
> this so we can get this dealt with. I still don't think there's any
> particular rush though, seeing as though they've still got an RC2 to
> release, then the real release, and getting upstream devs
Andrew Fyfe wrote:
> If your going to reference Greg's work at least include a link to the
> full documentation (http://www.diy-linux.org/x86-reference-build/), it
> includes comments explaining the reasons for the various choices Greg
> has made for doing things certain ways. He also has a page on
Joel Miller wrote:
sed -i.bak \
-e 's,\./fixinc\.sh,-c true,' \
-e '/^LIBGCC2_DEBUG/d' gcc/Makefile.in
Then again, the above sed looks more like the fixincludes patch as I
think it prevents the fixincludes process from running.
Greg chose to replace the simple patches like the fixincludes
If your going to reference Greg's work at least include a link to the
full documentation (http://www.diy-linux.org/x86-reference-build/), it
includes comments explaining the reasons for the various choices Greg
has made for doing things certain ways. He also has a page on the web
site (http://w
Joel Miller wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
A bit of a disclaimer before I try to pick apart this script a little.
Personally, I think you've looked at the script at far too low a level.
The book will continue to advocate not setting CFLAGS, or any other
such environment changes unless it is *absolu
TheOldFellow wrote:
A bit of a disclaimer before I try to pick apart this script a little.
All internal politics discussions aside, I greatly respect Greg's
technical prowess, and my trying to make changes to a script by some one
who knows a lot more than me will probably break things. That sai
I think it might be time to get ready for the imminent release of gcc-4.
The key thing that needs to be fixed in the (unstable) book is the
management of gcc's specs.
I've learnt quite a bit about this from Greg Shafer's scripts, and
attached you'll find a somewhat LFS-ised set of instructions wi
28 matches
Mail list logo
