Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:13:27PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>
>> I tested the in kernel headers on mips/alpha/sparc. There were a lot of
>> problems. silo and aboot didn't want to build right. The build had so
>> many errors in it, on all 3 of the archs, That I just walked away. I did
>> have a succesful build on x86 and x86_64. I didn't test arm or hppa.
>>
>>
> Joe, thanks for this datapoint. It's comments like this that make
> me glad I've only got a limited variety of hardware. (/me recalls
> how long it took to get a working config for my ibook on
> ARCH=powerpc).
>
> More on-topic for this list, x86 now has two reports of successful
> builds. Maybe LFS should reclaim its 'bleeding edge' position and
> switch to the 2.6.18 headers as soon as the new kernel is out, then
> let people here and in BLFS find out if anything is broken in use ?
> After all, x86 is "common as muck" so if things don't work there,
> they probably don't work at all ;)
>
The clfs headers package has built me a gnome/kde system on x86, x86_64
(pure64 and multilib), and alpha. A GPE arm system using kdrive as a X
server. And a fairly full mips (multilib) and sparc (multilib) system.
Glibc isn't too nptl friendly on hppa right now so I havn't gotten to
far into a build, But there doesn't seem to be any header obvious header
issues. If I had to choose a headers package. It would be the clfs
headers package over what is in the kernel for now.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
