Justin R. Knierim wrote: > I cannot say much about your first point, I have not heard of this > issue. Has a ticket been submitted?
No, sorry. > This topic though is about LFS, not CLFS XML. Even if LFS must > re-invent the wheel, surely contacting those who have already invented > it would be of some benefit? Even just emailing the list, or one of the > developers, or being in IRC pinging us with questions, would involve > help unite efforts and save valuable time. > OK. There is, however, one more thing that I have already mentioned in one of the "x86_64 bug" threads. CLFS does not take advantage of the fact that in many situations (referred to as "not-really-cross") the host can execute target binaries. For such situations, work is underway to create a third build method, that switches from cross-compiling to the native method after glibc, not after the entire Chapter 5. The aim is to future-proof the toolchain against such "compilers incompatible with the host glibc or headers" bugs, without losing the above-mentioned advantage due to cross-compiling. There are, however, difficulties on this way, and there is really nothing to demonstrate yet. Also, CLFS should stay for really-cross build scenarios. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
