On 2020-06-28 22:24, Scott Andrews 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
No need to get rude.
--
A: Yes, just like that A: Ja, net zo
Q: Oh, Just like reading a book backwards Q: Oh, net als een boek
achterstevoren lezen
A: Because it upsets the natural flow of a story A: Omdat het de natuurlijke
gang uit het verhaal haalt
Q: Why is top-posting annoying? Q: Waarom is Top-posting zo
irritant?
--
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
