Jeremy Utley wrote: > TheOldFellow wrote: > >> >> Fair comment. My earlier posts in LFS-Support in reply to an OP who was >> interested in gcc-4 had the links in. But thanks for repeating them. >> I'm attempting to stimulate some interest in moving LFS forwards. >> >> > It won't be long before LFS is far beyond Greg's build process. Greg's > still focusing on strictly x86 builds, LFS is on it's way to building on > anything for anything with the integration of Ryan's cross-lfs scripts. > >> I thing Greg's work deserves close examination - on more than the gcc-4 >> front. And it does work. >> >> > I followed Greg's work for quite some time. There's flaws in there, and > they've been discussed on the LFS lists previously. > >> Another good way to find out the reasoning behind his choices is to look >> at the diy-linux-dev archives - very educational. >> >> > His archives also expose the fact that DIY is him alone - it's not a > community thing - for that reason alone, LFS is the better project, IMHO. > > J
Good comments Jeremy. However it's the LFS new technology gestation period that gets me down. And I only have i686 boxes :-( R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page