On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:32:04 -0700 Paul Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Hazel Russman <[email protected]> > > On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:27:21 -0800 > > Paul Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > First, allow me to ask a question. Why do you need to go through Ch > > > 6 again? What is fundamentally different? Is one 32-bit and the > > > other 64? > > > > Your question puzzles me. It's a different machine. The new lfs > > partition that I make won't have any software on it except for the > > unpacked toolkit. Chapter 6 creates that software. How could I not go > > through that chapter? > > > > The basic architecture is the same: x64_86. But the toolkit was built > > on an Intel processor and it will be running on a Via. I hope that > > won't cause any problems. > > > > From: Simon Geard <[email protected]> > > > > On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 14:27 -0800, Paul Rogers wrote: > > > > First, allow me to ask a question. Why do you need to go through > > > > Ch 6 again? What is fundamentally different? Is one 32-bit and > > > > the other 64? > > > > Although not explicitly saying so, I think that by "the toolkit I > > created for my desktop build", Hazel means only Ch 5, and that Ch 6 > > will be done on the laptop. > > So I'm glad I asked. I don't understand. > > I've been building (B)LFS since 4.1 for "retired" hardware--only > appropriate--so am I. I've been very used to setting CFLAGS & CTARGET, > etc., for i586 & i686 architectures. And it worked for a 7.2 system I > built on a Coppermine (or Tualatin) Pentium-3 and installed on a little > Via-C7 (approximately a 1GHz Pentium-3 work-alike) mini-ITX system. > I'm only now beginning setting up my second 64-bit build--with 7.10! > > What I've seen so far has led be to believe 64-bit architectures > don't need those settings. It worked without them for my first > build, made on an i7-940, but installed and running in 64-bit mode on > a Conroe Core-2 Duo. (My process makes essentially an installable > "distribution" from Ch-6 as-built binaries. I don't just use a > complete filesystem tarball.) > > Now, given that both systems are 64-bit, where does gcc/glibc build > differently for individual processor differences? (Apart from that ABI > parm in gmp we'd need to build a 32-bit system on a 64-bit host. I also > did that using that 64-bit system on the i7-940, i.e. rebuilt the same > code proven in the 64-bit build for a 32-bit rebuild. Right now that's > what I'm running.) Why can't Hazel use her Ch-6 code? It seems to be > working for me. > > I can see it may be important what one picks when building a kernel. > The kernel is the hardware interfacer. When I build the initial kernel > in Ch-8, I always pick a "lowest common denominator" I expect to be able > to run on any of my hardware. There's always time for kernel > customization once it's running. > -- > Paul Rogers > [email protected] > Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." > (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) > > -- Ah, I see now. You want me to transplant the entire system, not just the toolkit. I suppose I could do that, then just build and install a new kernel more adapted to the hardware. I'd need a new xorg-server too with the openchrome driver. I dare say that would work, but to me it would feel a bit like cheating. If I wanted a ready-made system, why use LFS? -- H Russman -- 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
