Ken Moffat wrote:
LOL. It never ceases to surprise me what people have built LFS/BLFS on
- mostly we only ever hear about problems. I hope you're going to keep
notes (necessary variations or patches, if any, SBU timings, and space)
for whatever parts of BLFS you put on it, so that it can be
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
First, how do we test ~360 packages if the editors don't have the
hardware? If we did have the hardware, where do we find the time to
test the packages on multiple architectures?
Second, how should the information be presented after we figure out the
differences?
Third,
Have to admit to that one.. ;))) - although minor then it is still
different and as such not LFS 100%, so in any case the multi-arch LFS
may deviate at some few places. I doubt that the order of packages will
change, but building them will most likely be a little bit different.
The only thing
Stig Hornuff wrote:
If it is of any help, then I'm going to try build LFS on 2 SUN boxes:
A SUN 420R a SUN V250. Both of these are SPARC v9.
I'll let you know how things progresses if want it.
One thing which I can already say is: Default bootloader cannot be
used. I need to use Silo instead -
Ken Moffat wrote:
True enough, and I reiterate my suggestion that bootloaders should be
built after chapter 6, but a bootloader is not necessarily common to a
whole arch - powerpc has at least yaboot and uboot for current boxes,
and the PReP variants just use dd to put the image onto the bootable
Ultimately, it comes down to users/testers - if nobody has been known
to build BLFS on e.g. os390, it ain't gonna be supported.
I actually have installed a few BLFS packages on os390. Probably the
only person on the planet.
And...I am currently in the process of upgrading a os390 LFS-5 system
