[LFS.News.20060414] udev 分支并入主线。

晨想

Post by d00m3d
I just have a glance at the CLFS book.  Like LFS, once you finished, you ended up with a basic system with minimal functions.  It seems the CLFS developers assume users will proceed BLFS on their own native machine.  Is it practical to cross build BLFS, CLFS-BLFS?

Do you mean to build BLFS on your PII or on your T41?
For P2, It is the same procedure as LFS.
For T41, you have to cross compile everything, you might have to spend some time for it though. It is certainly feasible, but probably not trivial.

I don't catch it, can you elaborate?

1. Take a look at the NFS root in the kernel. Documentation/nfsroot.txt

2. 如何远程安装Linux
http://www.linuxsir.cn/bbs/showthread.php?t=178411

3. [总算明白了] PXE 远程启动是干嘛的。
http://www.linuxsir.cn/bbs/showthread.php?t=245723

简单来说，就是用远程机器来提供一个环境，这样你就至少有一个系统可以用。在这个基础上，mount USB 盘应该就不是问题了。至于LFS 做出来后，你也可以用同样的办法来引导 LFS（把整个 LFS 放在 U盘，然后用远程的内核启动，利用 initrd/initamfs挂在根目录，应该没有问题的。就是复杂了不少。）

demonlj

听起来CLFS很不错，初步的认识是：进一步减少就主系统的依赖

而且CLFS的交叉编译环境的建立方法应该是在制作发行版时非常值得借鉴的。

d00m3d

Post by 终极幻想
Do you mean to build BLFS on your PII or on your T41?
For P2, It is the same procedure as LFS.
For T41, you have to cross compile everything, you might have to spend some time for it though. It is certainly feasible, but probably not trivial.

Building locally is simply a standard BLFS procedure.

I mean to build BLFS for the PII with the T41 instead of building BLFS locally with the PII itself, is it feasible and practical?

晨想

Post by d00m3d
Building locally is simply a standard BLFS procedure.

I mean to build BLFS for the PII with the T41 instead of building BLFS locally with the PII itself, is it feasible and practical?

They are feasible. I am not sure about the reality(for practical). It should be fine as long as you have time and patient for it.

One thing you should aware is that the cross-toolchain is only supposed to use to build the local-toolchain. Do not use it for your cross-BLFS since the gcc spec is different to your target system. You have to build a new toolchain for that.  (I am trying to figure out this part too.)

晨想

Post by demonlj
听起来CLFS很不错，初步的认识是：进一步减少就主系统的依赖

而且CLFS的交叉编译环境的建立方法应该是在制作发行版时非常值得借鉴的。

恩，方法不一样，CLFS 更灵活。

至于发行版，如果不是专门为了某个架构编译的话，CLFS 也用不上。而且你也看到了，CLFS 上很多的小设置，比如某个头文件的拷贝之类的，都是说明 glibc/gcc/binutils 还不是非常完善，很多东西都需要手动来完成。这点比较麻烦。glibc 对其他架构的支持还不是非常完美，个人认为。

d00m3d

Post by demonlj
听起来CLFS很不错，初步的认识是：进一步减少就主系统的依赖

Really?  I think you still need a host to build your first toolchain, right?

d00m3d

Post by 终极幻想
They are feasible. I am not sure about the reality(for practical). It should be fine as long as you have time and patient for it.

One thing you should note is that the cross-toolchain is only supposed to use to build the local-toolchain. Do not use it for your cross-BLFS since the gcc spec is different to your target system. You have to build a new toolchain for that. (I am trying to figure out this part too.)

I begin to understand how does it work.

I should go through the CLFS book in more details.

晨想

Post by d00m3d
Really?  I think you still need a host to build your first toolchain, right?

Oh, without a host system, LFS becomes assembly language tutorial.

demonlj

Post by d00m3d
Really?  I think you still need a host to build your first toolchain, right?

写了一个错字：“就”->“对”

second toolchain是一个交叉编译环境，比LFS要舒服些。终极兄也是经常劝告搞LFS最好用它的LIVE-CD干活

晨想

因为 livecd 的 toolchain 最纯，不像发行版，都不知道加了什么补丁进去的。。烦人。。

就算是 CLFS，仍然推荐 LiveCD，不要用发行版。：）。