Randy McMurchy wrote: > Jim Gifford wrote these words on 05/27/05 01:48 CST: > > >>Would be great, but the RaQ series and few other designs don't have the >>ability to boot from a cdrom.That's why I'm persuing a method that is a >>little easier for people to work with on all systems. NFS root booting. > > > This is the future of LFS? > > Is the point of LFS in the future to cater to the folks with the > 5% of hardware? Seems that for the 95% (just my estimates, but it > has to be close to reality) of the folks that will be building on > x86 architecture, that the book is becoming increasingly difficult. > > I think a call to the community as to what should really be the > LFS goals is in order. >
I must start by saying that I have not been interested enough in this thread to have read every contribution in detail. Having built a couple of POX86S (plain old X86 system) with cross-lfs instructions, I've decided to take a copy of the latest svn non-cross-lfs book and maintain that for myself. The increased complexity of the cross-lfs method has zero benefit in x86 AFAICS. I'm not saying that cross-lfs isn't a great bit of work, it's just that I don't see that it has any application to 95% of folk building LFS for the first time, and the 5% who need a cross method could reasonably read a hint. I really don't feel comfortable forcing the toolchain to build a cross toolset when it isn't necessary. I was very keen to see if there was an advantage to using the cross method, but after experimenting with it, I have come to this differing view. Some people may feel betrayed by this, but Randy was brave enough to go against the trend and I feel I have to support him. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
