Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > With revision 8755, the new build method from DIY is in place with the > exception of support for multilib. (More on that in a second.)
No. You've also omitted perhaps the most interesting feature of the whole thing - the ability to migrate from a 32-bit system to a 64-bit system. As it currently stands, you're forcing folks to start from a 64-bit system if they want 64-bit. Useless. All this `case $(uname -m) in' stuff you've added is bogus. You'll have to rethink how you're going to handle this aspect if you want it to work. The other thing you've omitted is proper attribution. A simple "Thanks, me" is not good enough for something this big. The LFS changelog is not perpetual. You of all people should know how much time and effort goes into engineering this stuff. Some extra words next to my existing entry on the Acknowledgments page will suffice. "... Technical Writer and Architect of the Next Generation 64-bit-enabling Build Method" or similar. > I would like to know people's thoughts on how to deal with multilib in > LFS. It's a good question. It's easy for me in DIY because I actively target scripting. Because LFS targets the interactive command line, you'll have to be careful not to introduce too much awkwardness. But whatever you do, you *must* introduce a 32-bit Glibc in the 64-bit case. I'm even considering dropping pure 64-bit in DIY because its usefulness is limited. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
