On Feb 6, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hello All,
In talking with Ryan Oliver, there seems to be one final thing that
we can do to our current build which will help stabilize it
completely: add 'make bootstrap' to the gcc build of chapter 6.
The benefits of this is that, after it builds its stage 1 xgcc,
even if there are inconsistencies in the chapter 5 toolchain, gcc
will always find and use the correct binutils in /usr. Also it will
build itself using the same configuration the final product will
have, and it will *only* use the headers under /usr/include.
Hello guys,
I rarely comment on any of this stuff but I thought I might throw
something in here as well. People building LFS can do whatever they
wish as they build. There are notes for suggestion or with pertinent
information to the whole LFS build. Everyone wants a properly working
system. What would it do to make it a note to say that it is
suggested that the person build with make bootstrap? For most things
shortcuts lead to dead ends. Those of us who know more than the
average person know which shortcuts are good and which ones are bad.
For a properly built system, it doesn't matter how long it takes, if
it is intended that gcc bootstrap is the way to properly build a
compiler then so be it!
Here is my advice to those who think it takes too long... get 1GB to
2GB ram and build your sources in shared memory or get a faster
machine. Rome wasn't built in a day. Hmm, I wonder if Rome did any
bootstrapping.
Sincerely,
William
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
