On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 19:32 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Also, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, talking with Ryan set me on > a little bit of a purity path. One thing he suggested, however, which > I'm finding hard to put faith in at this point. He mentioned the purity > of the build is shown, in part, by being able to build on old and broken > hosts, ie, RH 6.2. I can see his point, in that it shows we've broken > from that environment and have built ourselves a robust and sane > toolchain. However, current LFS has requirements far above RH 6.2, such > as a host with a 2.6 kernel because of the step up to NPTL.
We require 2.6 for current lfs to build nptl (though not if the initial toolchain is replaced with a cross-lfs style setup). So, build a 2.6 kernel and install module-init-tools :P And yes, there are needed package upgrades that need to be done on the host from old systems, such as (OTOH) make and sed... For a full list of required host system tool updates you can check the list of packages that I build on the host for solaris -> linux cross-builds (this should be considered a superset though, you wont need them all for a *-gnu to linux-gnu build) As for the current build method, ch5 was based off ch6 dependencies (fair enough, circa LFS 4) with a lot of sweat instrumenting the build, emphasis was placed on ensuring that where practicible binary deps were satisfied as soon as humanly possible so the new tools were predominately used for building the ch5 packages. Ie: we were trying to mimic the old "build ch6 twice" approach (build system from itself) as much as possible. That way we either got a known good binary for use in ch5 (cannot guarantee the host systems), or exposed build bugs due to glibc migration etc early in ch5 as opposed to ch6. Regards [R] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
