more on definitions

Ken Moffat ken at
Tue Feb 3 08:31:17 PST 2004

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, michael wrote:

> I had the same kind of concern as Henry when going through LFS,and i
> must say i still do not understand why the static linking at the
> beginning of the toolchain build,since the code that will get included
> will be the host's..ok,i get the idea of what is static and dynamic
> linking,there's a separate linker for each case,right,but what makes you
> decide between the two?I really think this should be better
> explained,since it seems to lie at the heart of the LFS method..could
> someone explain this as to a ten year old?Thanks,michael

"Do as you are told" - would that be appropriate for a 10 year old ? ;)

I guess that the intention is to move away from the host's libc as
quickly as posible.  We build binutils and gcc statically, then use them
to build a new glibc.  These are the critical parts of the toolchain.
Our initial binutils and gcc are very temporary, but they don't have any
oddities in them, we can vouch for that.

You may well find that these first two packages don't actually need to
be linked statically anymore (I vaguely remember some discussion), so it
might just be that static linking has been left in for the educational
quality.  Static linking _used_ to be at the heart of the LFS method,
but from 5.0 onwards the heart of the method is toolchain purity.

Brighton tops UK Jedi league

More information about the lfs-support mailing list