2009/6/16 Konrad Mosoń <[email protected]> > > Hi. > > I creating now LFS, and i was on page: > 5.6. Linux-2.6.27.4 API Headers > from > LFS-BOOK-6.4. > > I tryied to run: > > $ make headers_check > > but i can't becouse i was that errors: > > CHK include/linux/version.h > HOSTCC scripts/unifdef > scripts/unifdef.c:209: error: conflicting types for 'getline' > /usr/include/stdio.h:651: note: previous declaration of 'getline' was here > make[1]: *** [scripts/unifdef] Error 1 > make: *** [__headers] Error 2 > > Well... i wrote simple patch, and now this command results success: > > diff -up ./scripts/unifdef.c.orig ./scripts/unifdef.c > --- ./scripts/unifdef.c.orig 2009-06-16 12:00:11.000000000 +0200 > +++ ./scripts/unifdef.c 2009-06-16 11:59:54.000000000 +0200 > @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static void done(void); > static void error(const char *); > static int findsym(const char *); > static void flushline(bool); > -static Linetype getline(void); > +static Linetype get_line(void); > static Linetype ifeval(const char **); > static void ignoreoff(void); > static void ignoreon(void); > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ process(void) > > for (;;) { > linenum++; > - lineval = getline(); > + lineval = get_line(); > trans_table[ifstate[depth]][lineval](); > debug("process %s -> %s depth %d", > linetype_name[lineval], > @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ process(void) > * help from skipcomment(). > */ > static Linetype > -getline(void) > +get_line(void) > { > const char *cp; > int cursym; > > Before, i found patch on: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/5/249 but i can't apply > this, well i wrote my. > Directory structure: > > ./linux-headers.patch > ./linux-2.6.27.4/ > ./linux-2.6.27.4/scripts/ > ./linux-2.6.27.4/scripts/unifdef.c > > Redards to, > Konrad (morsik) Mosoń >
I think this is caused by your host system using a newer glibc than what is in the book. Can you confirm that, please ? I saw the original report on lkml in May, but at that time nobody else on that list who looked at it was able to replicate the problem. At the moment, I'm slightly puzzled why nobody else has seen this in LFS. Also, we conventionally create patches so that they can be applied with -p1, not -p0. I guess I could do that part [if I don't lose my network connection again ;-) ] but I'd like to understand the circumstances in which this patch is needed. Thanks ĸen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
