On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:53:35PM +0200, Thomas Trepl wrote: > On Friday 12 October 2007 20:43, Ivan Kabaivanov wrote: > >... > > Just a few comments. I prefer to build a 32bit userland and 64bit kernel. > > This has been the advice of the ultrasparc gurus for a long time and as > > recently as a few months ago there was a discussion either on debian-sparc > > or gentoo-sparc that reiterated this original point. I didn't have to > > modify the LFS instructions *at all* except to add two or three extra > > packages needed by sparcs. [...] > This and the four pkgs mentioned in the clfs-project for the PPC we have 6 > additional packages which is an increase of round about 10% but on the other > side the field where LFS than is documented and maintaned grows from x86 only > to x86, x86_64, sparc, sparc64, ppc, and maybe ppc64. For ppc64, *either* multilib (which should stay in clfs IMHO - among other things it makes the build instructions for the desktop a lot more complex) _or_ 32-bit userspace with 64-bit kernel are *required* (can't build the mac bootloader requirements as 64-bit, can't run a 32-bit kernel). And yes, 32-bit userspace is recommended by most of the gurus, although multilib works ok with gcc-4.1 (if you can call firefox disappearing up its own rear end if you breathe loudly 'ok' :-)
But, there is a distinct lack of testers with ppc64 (everywhere). ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
