Ryan Oliver wrote: > 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...
Yes, my point was that in order to get to a place where you can start working with the current book, you have to alter the host to the point that, in many ways, it's no longer old and broken. :P So, in that sense, it doesn't seem worth the time and effort to try to make sure the build works on those old hosts - just stick with the 'it doesn't' and move on. Your work with PLFS shows that we can and do break free from the old host with a fair amount of purity. My goal now is to work out the necessary dependencies and give reasons for our build order. > 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. Yes, and I intend to make sure that that ideal is kept in the new branch 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. Thanks for the feedback, Ryan. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
