> Wot, one of your newer machines died ? Not yet, but the question was why someone running 64-bit LFS might want to build a 32-bit OS. I'm suggesting that prospect isn't so strange. Although 64-bit has been available for quite some time, I can pretty easily imagine needing/wanting to make LFS for an older box. My archive/file server runs on a 1GHz Coppermine. It doesn't need to do much that's at all complicated, and what it provides is limited by the speed of the network. It's fine.
Nothing I do needs modern performance levels. This is a 2.667MHz Conroe. tsc: Detected 2669.987 MHz processor Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 5339.97 BogoMIPS (lpj=2669987) I dare say my 1.4GHz Tualatin box would satisfy me. It's just that I like to have a hot-backup at all times, and its twin died. This system has an identical twin beside it--the ONLY difference is the power supply (1 20-pin w/adapter, 1 24-pin plug) and brand of RAM. > drives) then I doubt that any approach would be worth the effort. All depends on your resources. I'm retired on Social Security. I don't buy new computers! > > Are you telling me that all I have to do is build regular LFS-7.7 on > > CentOS and I'll get an x86-64 version automagically? > > Well, yeah... unless you do something special (like CLFS), your LFS > build will be the same architecture as the host. If you're using an > x86 host compiler to start, you'll finish with an x86 system - and if > you start with x86_64, that's what you'll finish with too. That should be reinforced in the book. It escaped my notice/realization. -- 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
