On 02/26/2013 02:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Send lfs-support mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of lfs-support digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Chap 6.14.1 (Rick Berube) > 2. Re: Chap 6.14.1 (Bruce Dubbs) > 3. Re: Chapter 5.23 and 5.24 - SOLVED (Frans de Boer) > 4. Re: Chapter 5.23 and 5.24 - SOLVED (Bruce Dubbs) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:16:45 -0500 > From: Rick Berube <[email protected]> > Subject: [lfs-support] Chap 6.14.1 > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > The 'make check' fails one test (of 33). Here's the results of the awk > command against gmp-check-log: > > make check-TESTS > make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/gmp-5.0.5/tests/mpn' > PASS: t-asmtype > PASS: t-aors_1 > PASS: t-divrem_1 > PASS: t-mod_1 > PASS: t-fat > PASS: t-get_d > PASS: t-instrument > PASS: t-iord_u > PASS: t-mp_bases > PASS: t-perfsqr > PASS: t-scan > PASS: logic > PASS: t-toom22 > PASS: t-toom32 > PASS: t-toom33 > PASS: t-toom42 > PASS: t-toom43 > PASS: t-toom44 > PASS: t-toom52 > PASS: t-toom53 > PASS: t-toom62 > PASS: t-toom63 > PASS: t-toom6h > PASS: t-toom8h > PASS: t-mul > PASS: t-mullo > PASS: t-mulmod_bnm1 > PASS: t-sqrmod_bnm1 > /bin/sh: line 5: 24070 Illegal instruction (core dumped) ${dir}$tst > FAIL: t-hgcd > PASS: t-matrix22 > PASS: t-invert > PASS: t-div > PASS: t-bdiv > ====================================================================================== > 1 of 33 tests failed > Please report to [email protected], see > http://gmplib.org/manual/Reporting-Bugs.html > ====================================================================================== > make[4]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1 > make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/gmp-5.0.5/tests/mpn' > make[3]: *** [check-am] Error 2 > make[3]: Leaving directory `/sources/gmp-5.0.5/tests/mpn' > make[2]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/gmp-5.0.5/tests' > make[1]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/gmp-5.0.5' > make: *** [check] Error 2 > > The hardware is a virtualized AMD-8150 (4 core) 4gb mem running under > Virtualbox. > > After searching both the GMP and LFS archives, I can find no relevant > matches. Which kind of bug would be more likely - GMP-related or > LFS-related? > > Any clues at all? > > Rick Berube > ------ > This fevered ranting was generated randomly. Any resemblance to coherent > thought is completely coincidental. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:39:55 -0600 > From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Chap 6.14.1 > To: LFS Support List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Rick Berube wrote: >> The 'make check' fails one test (of 33). Here's the results of the awk >> command against gmp-check-log: >> >> make check-TESTS >> make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/gmp-5.0.5/tests/mpn' > >> /bin/sh: line 5: 24070 Illegal instruction (core dumped) ${dir}$tst >> FAIL: t-hgcd > >> The hardware is a virtualized AMD-8150 (4 core) 4gb mem running under >> Virtualbox. >> >> After searching both the GMP and LFS archives, I can find no relevant >> matches. Which kind of bug would be more likely - GMP-related or >> LFS-related? >> >> Any clues at all? > > I haven't seen that error. The only thing I have is: > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/7.2/core2duo/test-logs/076-gmp > > and that shows a PASS. You may want to try > ftp://ftp.gmplib.org/pub/gmp-5.1.1/gmp-5.1.1.tar.xz but otherwise it > appears to be either a virtualbox or upstream gmp problem. > > -- Bruce > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:31:47 +0100 > From: Frans de Boer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 5.23 and 5.24 - SOLVED > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed > > On 02/25/2013 06:30 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Frans de Boer wrote: >> >>> Attached are two files as requested. In order to capture the warnings >>> too, I placed the 2>&1 operator at the end like make > grep-make.log >>> 2>&1, you would otherwise only get the stdout output and not stderr. >>> As you can see, the make output is exactly the same as I gave you before. >> >> I took the output of configure and your version is identical to mine. >> >> The first line of the make should be >> >> make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/grep-2.14' >> >> Looking at the Makefile, there is a command: >> >> am__cd = CDPATH="$${ZSH_VERSION+.}$(PATH_SEPARATOR)" && cd >> >> and that is used later: >> >> $(srcdir)/Makefile.in: $(srcdir)/Makefile.am $(am__configure_deps) >> @for dep in $?; do \ >> case '$(am__configure_deps)' in \ >> *$$dep*) \ >> echo ' cd $(srcdir) && $(AUTOMAKE) --gnu'; \ >> $(am__cd) $(srcdir) && $(AUTOMAKE) --gnu \ >> && exit 0; \ >> exit 1;; \ >> esac; \ >> done; \ >> echo ' cd $(top_srcdir) && $(AUTOMAKE) --gnu Makefile'; \ >> $(am__cd) $(top_srcdir) && \ >> $(AUTOMAKE) --gnu Makefile >> >> That shouldn't run because you should have something like: >> >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 bdubbs bdubbs 47019 Feb 25 17:11 Makefile >> -rw-r--r-- 1 bdubbs bdubbs 1795 Jul 5 2012 Makefile.am >> -rw-r--r-- 1 bdubbs bdubbs 57333 Aug 17 2012 Makefile.in >> >> The $(am__configure_deps) dependency should be the files in m4 and they >> all should have dates of 2012 before Aug 17. >> >> This indicates a possible clock problem. Is it set correctly? Also, >> you may want to try 'make -d' to see what is triggering this section of >> the Makefile. >> >> -- Bruce >> > Hi Bruce, > > I found the cause of my problems. I have all the development files in a > directory I use for the host system too. There I have no problems, > because all the files have the date and time as stored in the TAR file. > For LFS I just did a copy 'cp -r <dir> $LFS/sources' and changed the > ownership to 'lfs'. This should be no problem because the contents of > the files is not altered. With your remarks about timing, I tried the cp > -rp .... approach and all troubles are gone (until the next one). > > I did not see any reason to use tar files if my files are pristine too. > Alas, programs looking to the timestamps instead of the contents...? > > So, I restart the whole building process, now with the -rp option to copy. > > The thing is that I want to master the process of building my own > systems, using the latest versions, and not depend to much on the LFS > files. If it goes wrong I go back and try the LFS versions. For > instance, you still have file-5.11 while there is already file-5.13 > available. > > Anyhow, I learned a new lesson today and have a somewhat better > understanding of the used tools. Also, I will change the host system too > into using TAR files only as a base to start from - keeping accidents > like this away. > > Thanks for your time, > Frans. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:49:32 -0600 > From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 5.23 and 5.24 - SOLVED > To: LFS Support List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Frans de Boer wrote: > >> I found the cause of my problems. I have all the development files in a >> directory I use for the host system too. There I have no problems, >> because all the files have the date and time as stored in the TAR file. >> For LFS I just did a copy 'cp -r <dir> $LFS/sources' and changed the >> ownership to 'lfs'. This should be no problem because the contents of >> the files is not altered. With your remarks about timing, I tried the cp >> -rp .... approach and all troubles are gone (until the next one). >> >> I did not see any reason to use tar files if my files are pristine too. >> Alas, programs looking to the timestamps instead of the contents...? >> >> So, I restart the whole building process, now with the -rp option to copy. > > Glad you got it working. > >> The thing is that I want to master the process of building my own >> systems, using the latest versions, and not depend to much on the LFS >> files. If it goes wrong I go back and try the LFS versions. For >> instance, you still have file-5.11 while there is already file-5.13 >> available. > > You may want to look at the SVN version of LFS. It stays pretty > current, but file-5.13 is not in the book yet. It's only a couple of > days old, but in the TODO list. > > LFS-7.3 will be released in the next few days. I'm not sure file-5.13 > will be in that or not, but it will definitely be in SVN in a week. > > -- Bruce > > > > ------------------------------ >
Just as a guess, I moved gmp to the Real Machine and re-attempted the process. This time it was successful. I would infer that LFS doesn't play well on virtualized hosts. Thanks. -- Rick Berube ------ This fevered ranting was generated randomly. Any resemblance to coherent thought is completely coincidental. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
