-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: About LFS
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 19:50:06 +0300
From: Nick Riker <[email protected]>
To: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]>
BinUtils now mark 2.29.1 as the latest.
I don't know why they skipped 2.29.
That's an answer to: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/4142
I see the mailing lists on my gmail and i cant reply cause gmail will
do a top post, i will say it here.
I prefer the 64bit only LFS if it's easier/cleaner for the maintainers.
My main "problem" (though i fix it myself) is the directories. Most
Linux distros are moving away from the /bin,/sbin,/lib,/lib64 into
the /usr/bin,/usr/sbin,/usr/lib,/usr/lib filesystem hierarchy for some
years now.
They mostly doing it by symlinking directories (/bin -> /usr/bin) though.
The point is that even the smallest disks you can buy today, are
enough to hold the full linux. There is no need to mount /usr at a
later time and have to bother if the executable/library will be
available during boot.
The full article is here:
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/the-ever-changing-linux-filesystems-merging-directoris-into-usr/
I believe not having to move binaries and libraries from
/usr/{bin,lib} into {bin,/lib} will also make it easier for you to
maintain the pages and manage the code.
Again sorry for the direct message.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
