Jeremy Utley wrote these words on 04/18/05 23:44 CST: > There's a lot of plusses to this build, and very few downfalls, when you > really sit down to think about it. Mentioning the need for the reboot > was a good thing, but it's important to know WHY that becomes essential > - because if we're building for a different arch, the binaries we create > as part of the initial tools will not run on the host. If those > binaries will run, there's absolutely no need to reboot. > > Hopefully this clarifies things.
It does. But it is a far cry from the original post by Jim a few hours ago where the book will have *one* method of building, which includes rebooting into the 'tools' host. As long as there is provisions to build remotely, using a known good host, there is only positives to be gained from the new method. However, this isn't what was mentioned by Jim. I'm glad this discussion has come about. At least there is concern about building remotely out in the open. And by building remotely, this to me means being able to shell into a box and build LFS without rebooting. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 23:52:00 up 16 days, 23:25, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.06, 0.08 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
