, discovered that, for
many reasons, still need 32bit. Then, waited for LFS7.4, to build a new
complete one, 32bit. I only need 64bit for creating OJDK binary for the
book. Hope to start building tomorrow.
A couple of comments on SBUs - not sure if they relate to what you
wrote there, but I'd
gave it more memory.
I have a script to generate the SBUs. However, each time it is executed
in the same machine, the value is different, most of times by small
amounts, but eventually, by large amounts (cannot remember if it could
be double the value or such). Perhaps the machines have
, still need 32bit. Then, waited for LFS7.4, to build a new
complete one, 32bit. I only need 64bit for creating OJDK binary for the
book. Hope to start building tomorrow.
A couple of comments on SBUs - not sure if they relate to what you
wrote there, but I'd like to record what I do for package
Ken Moffat wrote:
This is prompted by my LFS-7.4 build on i686. The host was LFS-7.2
and a single-threaded initial SBU was 78.392 seconds (whoot! fast!).
But one of the first things I do on a new system is remove /tools,
recreate an empty /tools, and run the SBU commands as root. Usually
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:08 CST:
These values really overspecify the point and the high precision is a
bit misleading. I am presenting a suggestion for discussion:
SBUs less then 0.1 should be specified as:
Estimated build time: 0.1 SBU
To me, the *lack
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:24 CST:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:08 CST:
Estimated build time: 0.1 SBU
To me, the *lack* of precision in this example is much more misleading
that what we have now.
Let's say for the sake of roundness, binutils takes
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:24 CST:
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:08 CST:
Estimated build time: 0.1 SBU
To me, the *lack* of precision in this example is much more misleading
that what we have now.
Let's say for the sake of roundness,
