Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Ken Moffat wrote: >> >>> But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything >>> other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other >>> architectures. >> Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any LFS or BLFS >> developers that think non-x86 is unsupportable. We have chosen to keep >> those books x86 only due to the personal preferences, the hardware >> available to them, and a preference of wanting to use the simplest >> instructions possible without IF $arch == 'x' constructs. We have no >> problems with pointing people to CLFS when it is appropriate. >> >> -- Bruce > > If I summarised unfairly, I apologise. Would you prefer "is > unsupportable by most of the LFS/BLFS editors" ? This is in the > sense of "not able to be supported", NOT one of the meanings which > drift towards 'indefensible'.
I wouldn't use the word "unsupportable" at all. You can say that the LFS/BLFS Editors have chosen to only target x86 for a variety of reasons. The way I look at the whole project, it is a curriculum on how to build a system from source. LFS is the intro course where things are presented in a 'straight line' manner. BLFS is a follow on to that. Things like HLFS, ALFS, and CLFS can be considered advanced courses. Sure, some people can jump right into CLFS, but many can't. I think that LFS/BLFS will stay relevant for quite some time, even if the common hardware is x86_64 compatible. As Greg points out, many, if not most people run 32-bit OSes on 64-bit capable hardware. For general purpose work, I know of no compelling performance reason to use 64-bit applications or OSes. Of course, many of the LFS community will want to experiment with x86_64 or other hardware. The way the different approaches have divided themselves is not unreasonable. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
