On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:10:04AM +0530, Maurious Paul wrote: > I tried building LFS on x86_64 architecture and it builds smoothly. > But when it comes to the section "5.10. GCC-5.2.0 - Pass 2", the > compilation was successful. But the problem is when I performed > a sanity check as instructed in the book to ensure that the basic > functions (compiling and linking) of the new toolchain I receive this > output as unexpected > > *"[Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]"* > > instead of this > > "*[Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2]* > Note that /tools/lib, or /tools/lib64 for 64-bit machines appears as the > prefix of the dynamic linker." > > Is this correct and shall I proceed building LFS. > > P.S. : I read some solutions regarding this issue. I have also gone through > CLFS as suggested book for x86_64. But I'm asking is it legal to build LFS > on a x86_64 system and will it work as expected or should I use CLFS to > build x86_64 LFS. > > Please help me.
It looks ok to me, and yes, some of us have built LFS on x86_64 for many years (although when LFS used legacy grub, we had to use a different bootloader). The only reasons for using CLFS for x86_64 are - · because you want to · because you do not like the /lib64 -> /lib symlink [ but without that, several BLFS packages will cause you pain ] · because you want multilib (32-bit in /lib, 64-bit in /lib64). My only reservation would be that you have not specified which version you are building. 7.8 is preferred, 7.7 is probably mostly not _too_ old (although the matching BLFS certainly is too old), anything older is not worth your time. For a second build, of course, -svn is preferred but you might sometimes find breakages. ĸen -- ` This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
