What are the names of all the programs I would need to get (Without anything else) a LFS system online and getting my E-mail.
It will be on a dual 64BIT opteron system (if I get in the beta) and I am going to want it to support the following: Dual 64BIT CPUs, Firewire, S-ATA, EIDE, TV-OUT, and some other basic things.
Sorry if it's a newbie question.
BTW: Can I compile a 64BIT program with a 32BIT distro. Because I don't wont to have to install a 64BIT just to make a LFS and then delete it to install a 32BIT so I can put this drive back in this one.

Ok Bling Bling,

The FIRST thing you do is pack up that system you were describing and send it to ME ... I'll send you back my P3 600Mhz and you can install on that.

Just kidding. Sorry I don't have a solution I just thought that sounded like one KICKING machine.

Lol yeah I just hope I have enough money after the motherboard and the cpu's to get a psu, case, video card, harddrives, and ram.

P.S Does anyone know where I can get ECC registered pc2700 ram.

Ok, you need to read the BLFS book. You can find a link to it from the LFS website. It's not meant to be read front to back, but for you to pick what software you want, and gives the explanations of how to go about installing it.

You'll need to make a couple of choices. If you want a GUI, then do you want:
A) KDE
B) GNOME
C) Both
D) Just X windows plain

If no GUI, then you could go PINE, mutt (I think it's console-based), or others. There is a section in BLFS listing the common apps.

So, now you know your starting point. All that's left is to work backward. Each of the packages in BLFS list their dependencies. So, you'll have to compile a list of all the dependencies and compile them in the proper order. The BLFS book also provides links for each package for you to download the source.

The bad news is, the dependencies are not always complete. In installing GNOME, I ran across a missing dependency a couple times. The good news is, the configure script will gripe at you and tell you what you're missing. Just go to that section, download the package, install, and you're on your way again.

As for the 64-bit/32-bit problem, if I know anything about processors, then I'd have to say you've got a problem. You can probably use a 32-bit processor to compile for a 64-bit processor (cross-compiling). But you can't slap a hardrive with 64-bit binaries into a 32-bit machine and expect things to work. To be honest though, I'm not sure if that answers the question you were asking...

Ok here is what I was thinking.
I have a 500MHZ celeron right now and it's 32BIT and it has allot of thing on it.
And I was thinking when I get this new computer I just want to put this drive in and make my lfs distro then move this drive back to this computer.
So I was hoping to not have to download suse, install on new harddrives then make the lfs distro and then delete suse.

BTW I will be using gnome and I want a small fast browser and E-mail client. Because on this one mozilla and evolution are really slow and evolution wont let me put things in sub folders for my mail.

One more thing is it true that as long as your compiler compiles in 64BIT it will compile anything from source (.tar.gz) in 64BIT?

Ok two more things. I haven't been able to install a linux game on my redhat yet, but I am wondering will I be able to compile them in 64BIT? And what of windows games, if I compile winex in 64BIT what would happen?

Ok, that's a little different. I wasn't sure what you were trying to accomplish. My first thought was, you wanted to install LFS from a 32-bit machine for a 64-bit machine, do some stuff with it on the 64-bit machine, and then slap it back into the 32-bit... That's just not gonna happen.

So, if I understand correctly, you want to create the LFS install for machine A on machine B, because machine B is faster. Well, you can do that, but it will be trickier than a plain LFS install. I have never done this sort of thing before. So taking my advice without some other research might be a bad idea. Steps you'll need to follow:

1) You will need to compile the static section natively. That is, you do not cross-compile the static packages; you compile them in native 64-bit.
2) When you start compiling the packages in the shared section, you will need to modify the prefix arguments for all the packages AND determine what compiler arguments you need to specify for cross-compiling. Changing the prefix options is necessary so that your 64-bit system won't get confused trying to run one of the 32-bit binaries you created (if it happens to see one of them in your path)
3) When finished, you'll have to manually move the directories to the proper structure for the 32-bit machine. You might be able to avoid this by getting creative with how you mount the LFS system. I can explain what I mean by that if you want.

Or you could do this:
1) Cross-compile the static packages on the 64-bit machine
2) Slap it back into the 32-bit machine
3) Boot a CD-based distribution
4) Start compiling from the shared section

Obviously, that only offers you a small portion of the speed boost, but you don't have to mess with getting the prefix, manpath, and other configure options.

On to your other questions...

Galeon seems to be ok as far as browsers go, but I'm no expert. There are a number of browsers that claim to be minimal. I think Phoenix is one, but I've never played with them that much. My machine handles Mozilla fairly well; well enough not to encourage me to look for a replacement.

As for the game and winex, they should run regardless of the processor they are compiled for. That's what the compiler's job is: to look at source code (a very abstract description of a sequence of commands) and convert them into a sequence of binary instructions your processor understands. That's the basic idea, and for the most part, things work that way. There are some complications that creep in sometimes. If you're really worried about it, send an email to the folks at winex. Or just simply try it out. I would guess the worst that could happen would be a segmentation fault.

Hmm isn't winex sorta like a emulator in that it isn't a compiler but just something to run it after it installs it?

One thing I am worried of, is if the game doesn't let you compile it but has it's own program to install it. (Like some other OS we all know of)

I am not to sure if you got it right but here is what I mean again hopefully this will clear somethings up for me.

I have redhat9.0 on this computer.
I want to keep it on this harddrive and move this drive to the new 64BIT computer.
Then I want to compile a 64BIT LFS system on the new computer's new harddrive from this redhat9.0 install.
Then I will take this drive out and put it back into this one.
Hopefully then having NOT messed up this on at all and still having a fully working LFS system on the new one.

So it would be like this
This computer with redhat9.0 and 32BIT == com1.
New computer with nothing and 64BIT == com2.
This drive with redhat9.0 == hdd1.
New drive with nothing == hdd2.

1) Move hdd1 from com1 to com.2.
2) Install LFS system on hdd2.
3) Move hdd1 back to com1.
4) Boot com2.

Ok, about the hard drive swapping: No, I don't think you can do that. Again, if I understand correctly, this is what you want to do:

Move hdd1 from com1 into com2
BOOT com2 from hdd1
USE hdd1 to install LFS onto hdd2
Return hdd1 to com1

The reason is that all the binaries for your RedHat installation are 32-bits wide; they were written for a 32-bit processor. A 64-bit processor would read that data in 64-bit chunks. It would think that TWO 32-bit commands were a single 64-bit command. It would try to interpret them as a single statement; there's no way for the 64-bit processor to know that they're 32-bit commands. At least, I don't know how...

This is what you want to do (trust me): Download a live-linux CD-based distribution. I've used Knoppix without problems (www.knoppix.org), and I've heard the LFS site has (or links to) a CD-based distribution of their own. You will have to download the ISO that matches your 64-bit processor though. The thing about these distributions is that they reside entirely on CD. They do not put anything on your hard drive, which means you can do a clean LFS install without installing another distro on the drive to start with. It would be much simpler to do it that way than to try and finagle your computer/hard drive swapping.

Ok, back to winex. Yes, winex is an emulator, but it is a program just like any other. The emulator is compiled into a binary that the system natively understands. In your case, a 64-bit binary. Then, the emulator provides a "fake" environment for the legacy program you want to run (WarCraft, Doom, the original Civilization, or whatever). When the legacy program makes a system request, the emulator simply performs the function of a translator. It turns that request into the equivalent request to execute natively on your machine. You've seen/heard about the Nintendo emulators, right? The original Nintendo was an 8 or 16-bit machine (I don't honestly remember), but the emulators were/are running on 32-bit machines. It's pretty much the same situation you're talking about here.

The difference, that you're worried about, is the installer. Well, an installer is just like any other program, right? It simply does more disk IO's than average, but it's the same deal. The installer says "extract this cab/zip/arc file, and store it in this file here". The emulator snags the request, launches the unarchiver (translating its instructions too), and then performs the write to the native filesystem.

The problems with emulators are that not all system requests are mapped completely; that's what leads to instability and crashes. It's not because you're running on a different bit-width-based processor. At least, a well-written emulator won't. Then again, I'm not a part of the WINE, WINEX, or any other emulator projects. I'm familiar with theory, but lack any practical coding experience. Like I said, if you're really worried, an email to the developers will give you a definitive answer.

Ok cool man.
One thing I don't know if you know this but the opterons can read BOTH 32bit and 64bit code. It has 3 modes.
32bit kernel and 32bit programs
64bit kernel and 32bit programs
64bit kernel and 64bit programs
So I don't know if this will help.
I hope they make a live-linux distro for 64bit soon.
Yet again thanks.

Well, if they have a mode for it, then I don't see any problem. I'm not sure how they'd pull that off though; essentially, you have multiple processors on one chip... Maybe I've been out of the processor-loop for too long.

Anyway, if my ramblings helped, I'm glad I could be of service. If you ask others and they say I'm full of it, then I'm on par...

Yeah you have been allot of help.
One thing is even if I run it in 32/32 from this drive I don't think I can compile it in 64BIT unless I can find a cross compiler.

Now the hard part is to find a cross compiler or get 64bit linux and install and ehhh to much to say.
*is*

gcc will cross-compile for you. The LFS book mentions cross-compiling in passing, but it's just a command line argument specifying the target processor architecture. I think the command-line option is --target=<value>. You'd have to look around to find a table listing the different target values...

Hmmm ok thanks again.