Hi all,
does (B)LFS "officially" support i686 platforms or did we silently drop
32-bit? There were a few comments about this question in Sept/Oct last
year as Bruce brought this up. I cannot find a final decision.
I ask this question because of the issue occured by upgrading binutils
to 2.30 with which grub2 cannot be compiled [1]. Since there are no
other complains than from i686 systems, it looks like that this issue
does not occur on x86_64 systems. If LFS supports 32bit, shouldn't we
then refuse upgrading packages to version which do not compile on all
platforms?
I know, there is that good feeling of living on the bleeding edge - but
what does make us feel that we have to have the most recent version in
the book? The intention of the book is to show how things work - that
can be pretty much achieved with not-that-new version too. This allows
us to stay on a previous version if the new one does not work proper.
Making a comment in the package's chapter why this is not upgraded to
the last version right now should be sufficient.
Yes, there may be security issues fixed in newer versions. But is that
that much relevant for a LFS system where we hardly care about security
fixes?
Personally, i do recompiling LFS on 32bit for some of my older machines.
It's as fast as for 64bit as I'm doing it in a VM (which is not realy
much slower than bare metal). So compile time isn't that important to
me, i think its not an argument at all. I'd be kind of sad if 32bit
support would be dropped.
Whats your opinion?
--
Thomas
[1] - http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grub/2018-01/msg00006.html
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
