On Fri, September 29, 2017 09:10, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/ubuntu-to-stop-offering-32-bit-iso-images-joining-many-other-linux-distros/ > > I noticed this today. The question is whether we should stop direct > support of 32-bit CPUs. We do very little testing on 32-bit systems and > it takes a loooong time to build on those systems. The problem may not be > LFS, but AFAIK, we do not do comprehensive BLFS testing on 32-bit CPUs. > > I am of mixed minds. One one hand if the commercial distros are removing > support, having it in LFS is a service for those who want a modern system > on a 32-bit system. On the other, in most cases users would really want > to do a cross build from a 64-bit system to a 32-bit system and logical > place is then CLFS. > > Removing support would be relatively easy. we have a few paragraphs about > architecture and a few if statements, but the changes would not be > invasive. > > We could create a hint for 32-bit systems for those few that would want to > do a 32-bit build. > > Opinions? > > -- Bruce > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page Bad news for me :( Recently I needed a 32 bit boot disk. Instead of bothering with CLFS I ran Ubuntu 32bit CD in a virtual machine just so that I can build "vanilla" LFS. I can't disagree that any recent version of LFS takes forever to build on 32 bit machines... Alex
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
