> > I understand that some programs have "issues" with 64-bit systems. > > What issues? I've been running 64bit systems since 2005 with ppc64, > sparc64, and x86_64. The only issues you will encounter is with > precompiled binaries which aren't 64bit and require certain libraries > such as a specific libstdc++ version. Building everything from source > hasn't been an issue since most developers have matured the source.
Ahh, that's good to know. Guess I was still seeing "old news". Since my (B)LFS-7.2 I've been able to replace the Oracle JRE binary with OpenJDK, thanks to Pierre, and Flash with Shumway now that I can support Firefox-35. Except for some in the kernel I guess, I'm at the moment binary-blob free. I've been hoping for that for a long time, and hope to be able to keep that up. > >How common is this? > Building a 64 bit system is common. Encountering a binary which > requires specific libraries can be common if you do it all the time. I > can remember java, acrobat, wine and some other binaries I can't > remember right now. So you're suggesting I go pure 64? X drivers all OK with 64? > > How does one know how to plan for the "BLFS" stage? > We build a few systems and figure out what is exactly needed. If you > stick with CLFS multilib, use the cblfs.clfs.org wiki for a guide and > use BLFS with updated packages. You'll need the multiarch wrapper and > most packages will require --libdir=/usr/lib64 for 64bit along with > PKG_CONFIG_PATH and USE_ARCH variables. > > Keep it simple, if you don't need multilib, don't do it. It's a > headache. So if I go pure 64, then all the headers and libraries all work out automagically, and I can pretty much ignore the differences? > > 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. > > You can build CLFS through cross-tools and temp-system, and then > follow LFS book after chroot or by the boot method without issues. I think maybe we're talking about different things. If I make a pure 64 CLFS system, then in a couple years found some reason to need an update, do I have to go back to make a new CLFS, or as I asked above, does everything work out and I can follow the LFS book again? > With CLFS, we include graphite loop optimization support, where LFS > doesn't. If you require that, then you need to build CLFS in chroot or > by boot method through GCC, then you can use LFS. Graphite loop? Wozzat? Never heard of that before, being pure LFS-32. Why would I require that? Sounds like MAYBE that last clause answers my queston in the last paragraph? > If your current machine is multilib, then you can't blindly follow LFS Just LFS-7.2 with updated Firefox & OpenJDK. > instructions. You have to keep the multilib instructions in your > build. LFS isn't multilib. Even though you don't need to cross- > compile, you still need the multilib instructions. But going from where I am up to pure 64, I wouldn't? -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.com - The professional email service -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
