On 31/01/2018 18:16, thomas wrote: > 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?
Looks like all the devs (except you maybe) only compile on x86_64, so 32-bit support has not been dropped, but it is much less tested. For the binutils issue, have you tried my suggestion on support? Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
