Craig Jackson wrote: > I can attest to this. I have been trying to get a good compatible > build of LFS built on my Athlon 64 machine. I have had fun trying to > get a good multilib build, but when it comes down to it, LFS is much > more of a "known good" solution than CLFS, I assume this is mostly due > to the sheer numbers of testers. I can't comment on the number of testers of clfs, I honestly don't know, but quandary, my server that clfs is hosted from, runs pure 64 clfs and the main website pulls in around 9000 unique visitors a month. LFS is known good for x86, for other arches and multilib/pure64/etc, clfs will keep you from having to re-invent the wheel and contains extra info. Packages and instructions are not all that different between the books, they are in the same LFS umbrella of projects after all. CLFS just contains more information about various hardware, and type of builds. You can of course use whatever you want. :)
Justin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
