El Sábado, 14 de Julio de 2007 01:26, Dan Nicholson escribió:
I would actually really like to add x86_64 (non-multilib to start)
support to LFS and BLFS. It's becoming increasingly uncommon to even
be able to purchase a non-64bit processor at this point. We can
basically copy what Greg's
El Viernes, 13 de Julio de 2007 18:18, Ivan Kabaivanov escribió:
actually there's a notice just before the command you've quoted. This
is what I'm referring to:
quote
If working on a platform where the name of the dynamic linker is
something other than ld-linux.so.2, replace
Gentlemen,
Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
generate the specs file:
gcc -dumpspecs | sed '[EMAIL
Sorry for the repeat, folks. I sent this the first time in an HTML
message, and evidently it took five days to get through the review
process. After two days, I resent it in plaintext, and that's what
spurred the conversation.
Please ignore.
- Jon
On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Jon
Sorry for the repeat, folks. I sent this the first time in an HTML
message, and evidently it took five days to get through the review
process. After two days, I resent it in plaintext, and that's what
spurred the conversation.
I only go through lfs-dev's pending moderation list about
Jon Fullmer wrote:
Gentlemen,
Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
generate the specs file:
gcc -dumpspecs | sed '[EMAIL
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:49:06PM -0600, Jon Fullmer wrote:
I don't understand. I'm aware of CLFS (and even for the PowerPC).
This is assuming I want to build a system on a platform other than
its destined platform. I'm actually building it on a PowerPC box
running LFS-6.2. That's
Ken Moffat wrote:
But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything
other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other
architectures.
Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any LFS or BLFS
developers that think non-x86 is unsupportable. We have
On 7/13/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything
other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other
architectures.
Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any LFS or BLFS
On 7/13/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything
other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other
architectures.
Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any LFS or BLFS
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything
other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other
architectures.
Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't know of any
Craig Jackson wrote:
It seems futile for me to attempt
to test for LFS for the simple fact that the x86 architecture's days
are limited. You can barely buy a new system off the retail shelf
that isn't at least a single-core athlon64.
Um, you seem to be talking as if one must run a 64-bit OS
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ken Moffat wrote:
But, given that most LFS (and BLFS) developers think using anything
other than x86 is unsupportable, CLFS is the only way to go for other
architectures.
Ken, That is a little unfair. I don't
Um, you seem to be talking as if one must run a 64-bit OS on 64-bit
hardware. That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. IMHO 32-bit OS'es
running on 64-bit hardware are still the norm. See this recent post from
an Intel employee for example:
I'm not implying that, in fact i completely agree
Jon Fullmer wrote:
When putting this system for a non-x86 (PowerPC, to be specific), I
noticed that this setup is actually wrong.
You may want to check out http://trac.cross-lfs.org/ for the PowerPC.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
Gentlemen,
Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
generate the specs file:
gcc -dumpspecs | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/lib/ld-linux.so.2@/tools@g' \
I don't understand. I'm aware of CLFS (and even for the PowerPC).
This is assuming I want to build a system on a platform other than
its destined platform. I'm actually building it on a PowerPC box
running LFS-6.2. That's not the point.
The reason I mentioned that I was doing this on
Jon Fullmer wrote:
I don't understand.
Jon, LFS is targeted at x86 and therefore the instructions are only tested
there and not guaranteed to work on other arches. I've done ppc builds
myself and can confirm that specs files do indeed differ per arch and GCC
version. Of course, even the *name*
On Jul 12, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Greg Schafer wrote:
I've done ppc builds
myself and can confirm that specs files do indeed differ per arch
and GCC
version. Of course, even the *name* of the dynamic linker is
different for
ppc.
THAT'S what I wanted to know. Yes, I know that x86 uses
On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Jon Fullmer wrote:
Gentlemen,
Forgive a novice to this list. I couldn't find any mention of this,
so if it's already been talked about, I'm sorry.
Step 5.7 of the recent development book shows this step currently to
generate the specs file:
gcc -dumpspecs |
20 matches
Mail list logo
