Richard Melville wrote:
On 15 December 2015 at 08:36, <[email protected]> wrote:
15. Dec 2015 01:18 by [email protected]:
I'm beginning to think maybe my new direction ought to be an x86-64
Multilib, as I have a few Core2 boxes and one i7. I have some strategic
questions though.
I understand that some programs have "issues" with 64-bit systems. How
common is this? How does one know how to plan for the "BLFS" stage?
After an x86-64 system is created, and would be the host for future
development, then what? Presumably the next system doesn't need to be
cross-compiled. Can one use the regular LFS book? I just want to know
what it "means" to make the shift.
--
Paul Rogers
[email protected]
Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates."
(I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL
:-)
Since the last few years I've never used a 32 bit system and so far there
have been no issues at all with a 64 bit system. However, I've not compiled
a 32 bit system on a 64 bit host so you might run into some trouble if you
plan on doing that.
There have been some problems with a 64 bit only system but most of these
are obsolete since a few years. There were problems with 32 bit proprietary
flash versions and if you want to use Wine you need some 32 bit libraries.
I would just add that running a 64 bit system on a low spec machine
slows it down further. Experience has shown me that, in particular,
the amount of RAM installed is very important. Other than that I've
encountered no other problems with a pore 64 bit install.
What do you consider a low spec system? I have built LFS on a system with
1G of RAM several times. You just need some swap to handle a couple of
large packages (gcc/glibc). CPU speed should not be a consideration.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
