Issues with LFS glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Ryan.Oliver at Ryan.Oliver at
Wed Feb 11 17:01:51 PST 2004

Robert Connolly wrote:
> I'm reminded of an idea I had to separate the development tools from the
> system. For example, install chap5 to /stage1. In chap6 replace /usr with
> tools. Install a tiny base (busybox) on /, development in /tools,
> applications stay in /usr and /opt. This is friendly to diskless and
> systems that can mount tools and extra apps from network or storage
> Might have uses on workstations too. For stability libc would need to be
> built twice, and if its anything like glibc, to use fpie and ssp
properly, it
> would need to be built twice.

Similar to what I do on some of my DMZ boxes.
I like having build tools on the system, but I don't
like them lying around.

Ch5 installed to /stage1 (hehehe, I still do that),
glibc ch6 into usr, final gcc + binutils into a loopback
encrypted filesystem (along with selected other
gnu dev tools) funnily enough called /tools ;-).

After finishing ch6 /usr/include is moved onto
the loopback filesystem and a blank stub left.

When they are required, /tools dir is created,
encrypted filesystem is mounted onto /tools
and /tools/include is mount --bind'ed onto /usr/include.

Cleanup is opposite.

Of course this could be an NFS mount on embedded.


More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list