On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 14:44 Scott Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 19:41:20 +0200 > Frans de Boer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28-06-2020 14:07, Scott Andrews wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:42:10 +0200 > > > Frans de Boer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> LS, > > >> > > >> Currently, the previous chapter 5 has been split into 3 separate > > >> chapters. It is obvious why the new chapter 7 exists. > > >> However, chapter 5 and 6 are a bit puzzling. There are no extra > > >> actions between chapter 6 and 5, in fact one could argue that 5 > > >> and 6 can be fussed together. > > >> > > >> The only reason I can think of to explain the separation between > > >> chapter 5 and 6, is that chapter 5 provides the basic building > > >> blocks to compile the remaining of chapter 6. Which can be reused > > >> if (some of) chapter 6 needs a rebuild. After all, the next step > > >> is a different architecture where this approach can be used. > > >> That said, if the compiler or glibc is chanced, one has to rebuild > > >> chapter 5 anyhow. Looking at the packages in chapter 6, there is > > >> just only 2x extra time involved to compile them. Especially when > > >> there is no testing done, as was possible under the previous > > >> releases. > > >> > > >> Maybe one could explain this a little deeper? > > >> > > > Sorry to high jack you thread, not my intention, only to comment on > > > this new warp in the space continuum. > > > > > > I have looked at this "new version" way of building LFS and I > > > believe it will create many issues for me as someone that uses a > > > package manager. I also so see no real advantage over the old > > > way. I also use the overlay file system for the kernel so when > > > building chapter 6 (old way) only /tools is present in the "host" > > > file system along with all the scripts etc that I use to build LFS. > > > The "host" that I used to build the tool chain is completely > > > removed. I don't like mixing the tool chain into the root file > > > system ( yes I know in the old way some links are needed). I will > > > continue with using the old way, and I think it is time for me to > > > split from the LFS project and go my own way. > > > > Sorry Scott, I see no package manager in de re-styled LFS. Just as in > > the previous version, there is some talk about a package manager, but > > that is it, just highlighting the differences and/or possibilities. > > I use a package manager and the changes made severely impact anyone > using a package manager. As in the new changes make using a package > manager very difficult. I see little to no benefit for the pain > induced. I would rather go to the dentist and get 32 teeth drilled > with out Novocain than to "update" to this new process. > > > > > Don't forget that the project is to assist others in building their > > own basic linux system. As the world continues, we must take into > > account that different architectures will be come into demand. Using > > a textbook example for cross-compiling is a start. In fact, this > > layout has benefits over the previous versions in that we don't have > > all kind of workarounds to build things and paves the way for future > > LFS's. > > > > My builds are for the ARM platform and I build 32 bit systems on a 64 > bit platform. This "new" version only causes me grief and at the end > of the day the product is the same. No different just more grief. > All thou I do make some mods on host the build system is constructed > Once chroot into the "BUILD" chroot it is all by the book, until now. > > Mixing /tools and the root filesystem by way of DESTDIR causes a great > amount of distruction. The only "advantage" I see is not having to > "adjust the toolchain" at the risk of greatly enhanced way of killing > the host system > > I have zero work a rounds to take version 9.0 or 9.1 and build it on > the ARM platform so I am at a loss to see your benefits. I only need > to change the flags and add platform info and the build goes exactly to > the book. > > You have even whacked the PiLFS project as they are somewhat stuck on > the devel version just prior to this "NEW" mess. Nothing new has been > posted to their site in a while unless it just happened today. > > I tried using the new enhanced version and it failed, I concluded that > the changes needing to by made and then debugging the "build" scripts > far out paced any good. > > Looks like you "systemded" LFS > > -- > <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support> And now I'm going to roll around dying of laughter... Flareon Zulu 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 >
-- 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
