----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>
To: LFS Support List <lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Bk6.6Ch6.9 glibc `__stack_chk_guard' work around.
x2...@lycos.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the work around i'm using.
>
.
.
.
>
> At this point i resumed compiling at Bk.6.6_Ch.6.17, Sed,
> and have so far completed through Ch.6.59, Vim, without
> errors.
>This indicates to me that you made an error in Chapter 5. The error was
>probably in either gcc or glibc.
>
>When we prepare for a LFS release, we have automated scripts that
>extract the instructions from the book and build the entire system.
>Your work around is not necessary if all the instructions are followed
>properly.
>
>Your comment is that you "pretty much" followed the book. Either you
>made purposeful changes or missed an instruction. If you made *any*
>intentional deviations, please elaborate them.
>
>In either case, I wouldn't trust your system. I recommend starting
>over. Of course, it's your distro, so you make the rules for your system.
> -- Bruce
--
Bruce,
I threw in the "pretty much" this time as a freebie given the
controversy it caused last time.
Started Bk.6.5 just as Bk.6.6 was released. Had gotten to Bk.6.5Ch.6.9
and had to stop because of the `__stack_chk_guard' error. Thought i
could have made an error so i 'rm -rf /mnt/lfs/*' and re-started using
then newly released Bk.6.6 being especially careful to follow the
instructions to the letter. Of course as you know from my previous post
i encountered the `__stack_chk_guard' error again in Bk.6.6Ch.6.9.
I think your right about the error being in gcc. The libssp and gcc
were both installed at the same time, both have same time stamp. Why
gcc couldn't find it, well, i don't know. The -fstack-portector option
was so suppose to pull in libssp, at least that was my understanding,
so that -lssp wasn't needed for final linking line.
Since i don't have the scripts to automate the complete build but instead
have to do it manually from the beginning, which is kinda time consuming,
re-starting to find the source of the error isn't feasible for me.
Given that this error, `__stack_chk_guard', only cropped up for the
production of the 'nscd' executable with the 2nd pass gcc, and, not
at all with the Ch.6.16 gcc, i feel confident enough, especially with
both resulting glibcs' passing their test suites, to use the system
as it is now.
And if it falls apart and bites me on the a** then i'll have afforded
you one of the supreme pleasures in life. The right to tell me
you told me so. :-)
I don't mean this to be critical, but, since your using automating
scripts to generate your version of LFS it comes across as being
kinda of hypocritical to say to we who do this manually that we
must suffer from the beginning to obtain our pure and worthy distro
of LFS. I'm not even going to try and point out that the scripts
are adding their own unknown variability to difference between manual
and automated production.
Time to sleep. Won't be able to check for responses till after 9 EDT.
Night.
pete x2164
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
