> As you may know, when building OpenJDK, you need OpenJDK, and this > bootstrap problem is solved by providing a java binary on anduin. > > So far, we have always provided a 64 bit and a 32 bit binary. But more > and more people have 64 bit machines, and I myself do not maintain > anymore 32 bit (virtual) machines. So, generating a 32 bit binary > would involve building a complete LFS-7.10 system + all dependencies > for OpenJDK, and then build OpenJDK itself. It is a lot of (wasted, > IMHO) time. > > So would it be OK if we provided only a 64 bit java binary? Note that > a java binary can always be obtained from Oracle's site...
After making 64-bit 7.7 for my i7, although it does run on my 2-4GB Conroes, I turned around and made a 32-bit 7.7 for them. If I were to make 7.10, I'd make both again. (Both aready run JDK-1.8.45.) If I could use those to build the new JDK, I guess I'm good to go. But in answer to your more general question, yes, some of use still use/make 32-bit smaller systems--I'm retired, everything here is salvaged, that's why. -- 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 - Accessible with your email software or over the web -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
