Greg Schafer wrote: > Dude, it's fairly simple. I'm not sure if you meant to sound condescending here; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't. It does appear, however, that you missed the point of my request. I wasn't asking you to explain to me your method; I get it. I was asking you to present the options to the community in order to foster discussion.
> The symlinks keep the `-disable-multilib' build > very much compatible with x86 ie: very little changes are required, and > this is a *MASSIVE* maintenance advantage. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in > this thread, LSB binaries (those with interpreter path > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) will work. Thank you, this is what I was after. > I don't buy your argument about > symlinks being less robust.. neither does Ubuntu.. rescue CD's exist for a > reason you know :-) I simply presented it as something to consider... > I thought you were trying to adapt the current LFS/DIY *native* build > method to non-multilib x86_64 (similar to what I've done in the DIY > Refbuild). None of the CLFS gunk you're currently adding is needed. If > you're going to borrow bits of CLFS stuff then IMHO you may as well just > forget the whole thing and point folks to CLFS. Well the same could be said for adding material borrowed from DIY. 'Might as well just point the users to DIY-Linux'. The 'gunk' that you've mentioned is just one patch to GCC and two possible commands added to Glibc. And as was already mentioned, even that could be removed. It would just require that we alter the text that is shown from the gcc tests. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
