Le Dimanche, 09 Mars 2008 17:34:04 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> All the final system packages (i.e., the ones in chapter 6 in LFS) > should (ideally) be built natively. Whether you use CLFS or LFS, this > is going to be the case. Obviously I haven't read the CLFS book from A to Z. Do you mean by that, that it'll go natively because of the 'chroot or boot' choice, even though there was an extra step (compared to plain LFS) at building and using a cross-compile toolchain in the first place ? > The reason for CLFS is so you can cross compile your temporary > system, ostensibly, for these reasons: > 1. Allows you to begin work from a wider range of machines and > hosts. 2. Should provide good separation from the host system. But it seems this has a limit, at the end of chapter 5 where the question "chroot or boot" pops up. Let's say I do indeed use CLFS to cross-compile a x86_64 system and that I use a 32-bit host to do so. Doesn't that choice makes it clear that I'll have to boot the target to continue building a full system ? Then, does this imply that a full system on a ARM processor such as the Linksys NSLU2 can only be fully built natively on that very slow processor ? Isn't it possible to build a full system by only using cross-compilation ? I have the impression that the Timesys folks (for one) used to do that, providing Windows users a means to build Linux systems then to download complete systems on target BSPs. Maybe this is how Open Embedded is doing it also. Why would the actual system be important if nothing linked to a running kernel is being built ? I understand that inside BLFS, building a X server is recommended to be done on a live system (or at least it used to be recommended a few years back). But isnt't that an exception ? Nothing else warrants using an actual live system to produce a full built, isn't it ? Or am I missing something ? > 3. If you have a 64-bit kernel on your host system, but only 32-bit > dev tools, you can create the 64-bit temporary dev tools by > cross-compiling. I'd believe that in this case, a Fedora Core 6 x86_64 system has all the tools required. Verifying is much better than believing, though :-) > That being said, as of now, you can natively compile LFS on a 64-bit > system provided you: > > 1. Build a 64-bit only system, no multilib > 2. Start from a host that has both a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit dev > tools. If you look on the LiveCD servers, such a LFS LiveCD exists. Ditto the comment above about FC6. > You can use either the principles found in DIY-Linux or the jh branch > of the LFS book as a guideline. DIY is geared toward a more advanced > audience, and the jh branch is not currently up-to-speed with the > current LFS development book (although it isn't far behind, mostly a > few package version changes). A rendered copy of it is here: > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/lfs-JH/ Thanks for the URL and for mentionning DIY-Linux. I wasn't aware of either. Cheers, Al -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
