On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:32:36 -0700, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > It seems that Greg never got the time to comment any more thoroughly on > the modifications, either. I'd kinda like to hear what he has to say,
Well, I've been doing a lot of reading in order to get back up-to-speed. One of the reasons I haven't commented yet is that nothing has really changed since the last time Ryan and myself debated this back in 2009. And this is one of the big objections I have - the proposed changes are not even based on Jeremy's work, but Ryan's. It's like Jeremy has been waiting around for a few years for me to go away so that he can quietly "drop it in". Is Ryan still around to pick up the pieces if things fall apart? AFAIK he hasn't been spotted in the wild for a few years, but then again, I don't hang around in IRC circles so I wouldn't know... And let's be clear. We are not talking about a "sysroot" per se. It's simply configuring the Pass 1 Cross Toolchain with the sysroot option then (ab)using the functionality it provides. This whole thing came about because Jeremy has doggedly latched onto comments by a toolchain dev back in 2008 when I raised this PR against GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR35532 We are not toolchain developers! It should be obvious to everyone that the needs of the LFS build process are not the same as a GCC dev! There is quite a bit of detail in that PR so I encourage interested folks to analyse it. I repeat, the sysroot configuration options as proposed by Jeremy are a complete abomination IMNSHO. In no way is it "upstream intention", in no way is it "educational". The sysroot infrastructure is clearly designed for a $SYSROOT/usr layout which we DO NOT HAVE in the temporary phase! Here is an earlier posting/thread which explains it in a lot more detail: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2009-January/062541.html I agree that the current startfiles patch should not be necessary. In fact, I'm sure I had my build working without it at one point in my dev builds but unfortunately I can't find it now.. Sigh.. It looks like I'm going to have to get back on the horse and do the hard work yet again! And while we are on the subject of getting up-to-speed with toolchain matters, it looks like GCC 4.7 is the start of the "transition to build GCC with g++". This could have massive implications for us considering we dropped the GCC bootstrap when we brought in the cross stuff: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-03/msg00117.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-03/msg00125.html This, and the increasing momentum for the gold linker to become the default, means we are looking at a C++ future for bootstrapping an LFS system. I suspect we are going to need a major overhaul of our build method which is going to be fun to work on.. On the plus side, there is a stack of work going into Glibc at the moment. A lot of it appears to have originated in the eGlibc project to ease cross building and bootstrapping etc. I'm not sure how it happened, but it seems Ulrich doesn't exert the same control he once had. Regards Greg -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
