[lfs-support] LFS Build on x86_64

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sun Nov 15 18:01:16 PST 2015


On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:10:04AM +0530, Maurious Paul wrote:
> I tried building LFS on x86_64 architecture and it builds smoothly.
> But when it comes to the section "5.10. GCC-5.2.0 - Pass 2", the
> compilation was successful. But the problem is when I performed
> a sanity check as instructed in the book to ensure that the basic
> functions (compiling and linking) of the new toolchain I receive this
> output as unexpected
> 
> *"[Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]"*
> 
> instead of this
> 
>  "*[Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2]*
> Note that /tools/lib, or /tools/lib64 for 64-bit machines appears as the
> prefix of the dynamic linker."
> 
> Is this correct and shall I proceed building LFS.
> 
> P.S. : I read some solutions regarding this issue. I have also gone through
> CLFS as suggested book for x86_64. But I'm asking is it legal to build LFS
> on a x86_64 system and will it work as expected or should I use CLFS to
> build x86_64 LFS.
> 
> Please help me.

It looks ok to me, and yes, some of us have built LFS on x86_64 for
many years (although when LFS used legacy grub, we had to use a
different bootloader).  The only reasons for using CLFS for x86_64
are -

· because you want to

· because you do not like the /lib64 -> /lib symlink [ but without
  that, several BLFS packages will cause you pain ]

· because you want multilib (32-bit in /lib, 64-bit in /lib64).

My only reservation would be that you have not specified which
version you are building.  7.8 is preferred, 7.7 is probably mostly
not _too_ old (although the matching BLFS certainly is too old),
anything older is not worth your time.  For a second build, of
course, -svn is preferred but you might sometimes find breakages.

ĸen
-- `
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.


More information about the lfs-support mailing list