x86_64 again...

Jens Olav Nygaard jens_olav.nygaard at chello.no
Mon Jun 27 13:05:30 PDT 2005

Ken Moffat wrote:
>  At the moment, the "most sure" was is probably to install a 64-bit
> distro.  So far, there are no _recent_ x86_64 instructions that I'm
> aware of for building from an x86 host.  In LFS terms, "best" means
> maximising the learning, but it depends how long you can spare.

Hmm. I see. Haven't quite decided yet, I have finished downloading
the Fedora Core isos for this, but one advantage of taking the (slow)
x86-host to x86_64 system, is that I can use the host for all my
current work and projects, while building the lean mean LFS system
on the side... At the moment I think this is what I will do. At least
if the old host will just reboot and work with a completely new set
of underlying hardware. (In 32 bit mode, of course.)

>  Ignoring _how_ you are going to install, you need to consider what sort
> of result you want - my experience is that browser plugins (RealPlayer
> in my case, but also flash) need a multilib system so that they can link
> against 32-bit libraries (RealPlayer needs the gtk/atk/pango trinity,
> and when you work backwards this implies a 32-bit X and libpng (you can
> overwrite the 32-bit X _programs_ with a later 64-bit build).

No problem with these projects in particular, since I make a point out of
*not* installing them. (If some content is conveyed by Flash or Real, I'm
most likely not interested in it, or rather, I would prefer not to be able
to receive it.)

>  Similarly, the common bootloaders are 32-bit (I think Chris Lingard
> patched lilo or one of its dependencies to build on a 64-bit host, but I
> could be wrong).  Obviously, you can install the bootloader from a
> 32-bit host, but long-term that's not a viable solution.

Hmm. I see. I'll search around for info on my favorite (Lilo) then.

>  After you've (hopefully) got LFS installed, you'll want to build
> whatever blfs packages you use.  If the 32-bit stuff is in /lib and
> 64-bit in /lib64, you'll need to take care (as well as jumping through
> some minor hoops) - I hope to post some initial comments about specific
> packages on blfs-support in the next few days.

Great, would appreciate that. I hope to receive my new machine by the end
of the week, so the timing seems perfect, for me...

>  From a BLFS perspective, using /lib for 64-bit would undoubtedly be
> easier (and on 86_64 there is no reason to build 32-bit for your normal
> applications, the additional registers mean there is no significant size
> penalty, unlike e.g. ppc64 where kernel maintainers use a mostly 32-bit
> userspace).  But putting the 32-bit stuff into /lib32 means patching at
> least some of the toolchain. I'm fairly sure Ryan's cross-lfs scripts
> have got something for this, but it was only near the end of my last
> test build that I realised what a pain compiling to /lib64 can be in
> blfs.

 From this, I take it that I will probably opt for 64 bit in /lib...

>  So far, I haven't managed a successful x86_64 build without Ryan's
> scripts, and even hacking Ryan's scripts to look nearer LFS-6.1 gave me a
> somewhat broken result, mainly because I don't grok everything in the
> scripts.  But, it's a learning experience [ spoken through gritted teeth
> ;) [

Hehe... (I take it the scripts are these, which Goggle turned up:

Thanks for the tips.


More information about the lfs-support mailing list