Greg Schafer wrote: > By installing stuff into different prefixes, you are forced to butcher the > GCC source to coax it into searching the right places. Why? Because many > of the toolchain search paths are keyed off of $prefix. There is much less > hackery involved if you install into a single prefix ie: /tools.
It really makes no difference whatsoever to me if the cross-binutils and cross-gcc are installed in /cross-tools or /tools. For my testing purposes and while I was running several builds, I chose to follow Ryan's example with the prefixes, mostly for the reason he mentioned, that it makes it easy to start again (when you know that the instructions for the first two packages are correct). I can totally appreciate that (perhaps for the sake of simplicity) some may want to just have it all dropped into /tools, and if so, I'd be happy to stick to that. As far as 'butchering the source' goes, there's nothing done in the first pass of GCC to the source that isn't done in pass 2. Essentially it's the same sort of stuff we've _always_ done in pass 2 to ensure that the compiler uses only the libs and headers in /tools. In fact, it's less, because we don't have to mess with a specs setting. I think the rest speaks for itself. The build produces good results and there's less massaging that needs to be done post install to get gcc and /tools/lib to play together. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
