[blfs-support] Udisks-1.0.4 Versus Udisks-2.1.1
Howdy, I had installed Udisks-2.1.1 as a requirement for other BLFS programs, and now I'm going through the list of all BLFS programs and installing what looks reasonable. One possibility is Udisks-1.0.4. My questions are: If I already installed Udisks-2.1.1, do I need 1.0.4? Why or why not? What is the practical difference, if any, between these two packages? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Lots of problems with Firefox
On 12/4/2013 6:44 AM, akhiezer wrote: > More discussion via e.g. google 'firefox disable javascript', seemingly incl > that perhaps it'll make a reappearance in ff24. > > (I stopped using ff quite a long time ago, other than occasionally within a > VM). Why did you stop using ff, and what do you use now? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Setting Up "unix charset" in Samba Configuration File
On 12/11/2013 11:42 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:46:09AM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: >> >> LC_ALL=en_US locale charmap -> ISO-8859-1 >> LC_ALL=en_US.iso88591 locale charmap-> ISO-8859-1 >> LC_ALL=en_US.utf8 locale charmap-> UTF-8 >> >> So far as I understand, US English installations work with either of the >> above charmap settings. >> >> Can someone explain the difference? > > So long as you use _only_ ASCII characters or the few symbols and > accented letters offered in it, ISO-8859-1 works fine. Once people > start using UTF-8 (like in my .sig), things break down. > > If you look at iso-8859-1 on wikipedia it will show you the limited > range of glyphs / codepoints it supports. What that page *doesn't* > mention is the encoding. For that, look at the UTF-8 page if you > are interested in the messy details. The point is that ANY latin-1 > (ISO-8859-1) character with a value greater than 0x7F is represented > by a single byte. > > However, when I send you the same character in UTF-8 it will occupy > more than one byte. For example, the copyright sign is 0x00A9 - in > UTF-8 that becomes 0xC2 0xA9 [ © ] if I've read the UTF-8 wiki page > correctly. > >> And what I should set in the Samba >> smb.conf file for "unix charset"? >> > If you have ISO-8859-1 data in the files offered by Samba, then I > guess you need to use 8859-1. Otherwise, use UTF-8. Windows has > supported UTF-8 for a long time. How can I tell if I have "ISO-8859-1 data in the files offered by Samba"? As I understand it, Samba is a general file server, so in general it should handle all manner of files; hence I should use UTF-8, no? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] Setting Up "unix charset" in Samba Configuration File
I'm a bit fuzzy on what you're supposed to use for the "unix charset" parameter in the /etc/samba/smb.conf file. This is for installing Samba-4.1.2. The BLFS book's instructions on setting up the Samba configuration file smb.conf says to adjust that parameter appropriately for your installation, and that this parameter "must be the same as the output of locale charmap when executed with the LANG variable set to your preferred locale." In the LFS book, section "7.13. The Bash Shell Startup Files", you figure out the charmap for your locale and language. Accordingly, this is my setup: echo $LANG -> en_US.UTF-8 locale charmap -> UTF-8 However: LC_ALL=en_US locale charmap -> ISO-8859-1 LC_ALL=en_US.iso88591 locale charmap-> ISO-8859-1 LC_ALL=en_US.utf8 locale charmap-> UTF-8 So far as I understand, US English installations work with either of the above charmap settings. Can someone explain the difference? And what I should set in the Samba smb.conf file for "unix charset"? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Samba Daemons smbd nmbd winbind Don't Start
On 12/8/2013 9:12 AM, Igor Živkovic wrote: > On 12/08/2013 02:20 PM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: >> Yeah, as Fernando mentioned, I meant "failed to start". Here's the >> message I get upon bootup: >> >> *Starting nmbd... [FAIL] >> *Starting smbd... [FAIL] >> *Starting winbindd... [FAIL] > > > What is the output of 'nmbd -F -S' command? nmbd -F -S gives: nmbd version 4.1.2 started. Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2013 error opening config file '/etc/samba/smb.conf' From that I went back and looked over the BLFS installation stuff for Samba again. Oops! I missed that the default file /etc/samba/smb.conf.default had to be copied over to smb.conf . I had edited the default file appropriately but not copied it to smb.conf . Now nmbd, smbd and winbindd start up OK. On 12/8/2013 9:20 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > That's all? No more messages such as "/run/samba not found" or something > else? The suggestion I gave you before could give the complete output to > post here: run, as root: > > /etc/rc.d/init.d/samba start In the console, /etc/rc.d/init.d/samba start was giving: # *Starting nmbd... [FAIL] *Starting smbd... [FAIL] # But now that I fixed the smb.conf file, it works. Thanks guys! Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Suggestions on Desktop Environment
On 12/3/2013 8:22 PM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: > I'm not far from choosing a Desktop Environment, which BLFS gives you > choices of KDE, XFCE, LXDE to install. > > I use Gnome at work, an old version that comes with Redhat 5, and I > understand that new versions get mixed reviews in online forums. I have > no opinion, having no experience except with what comes with my Fedora > 19 host system. > > Why does BLFS not do Gnome? I see that Gnome depends on systemd which > BLFS does not support. Can anyone give me a few clues about the issues? > > I've used KDE before, where I used to work, and I was quite happy with it. > > Any comments on the relative merits of the three that BLFS recommends? > Beyond the brief introductions in the BLFS book? Well, based on the many kind suggestions I received, I installed XFCE and managed to get it running. It looks very nice. Man, what a lot of dependencies, though. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Samba Daemons smbd nmbd winbind Don't Start
On 12/6/2013 8:41 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Alan Feuerbacher wrote: >> Howdy experts, >> >> On the road to installing XFCE, I'm trying to install libsoup-2.44.2. >> The BLFS book has an option for "Samba-4.12 (ntlm_auth is required to >> run the test suite)." to run the tests. I've successfully installed >> Samba (as well as the other suggested options) and installed the >> blfs-bootscripts-20131023 install scripts to start the daemons. >> >> After installing the above stuff I rebooted and watched the progress of >> linux booting up. Each of the daemons smbd, nmbd and winding failed to >> install. >> >> Any clues as to what's going wrong? > > "failed to install" is a little short on information we can use to help. Yeah, as Fernando mentioned, I meant "failed to start". Here's the message I get upon bootup: *Starting nmbd... [FAIL] *Starting smbd... [FAIL] *Starting winbindd... [FAIL] Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] Samba Daemons smbd nmbd winbind Don't Start
Howdy experts, On the road to installing XFCE, I'm trying to install libsoup-2.44.2. The BLFS book has an option for "Samba-4.12 (ntlm_auth is required to run the test suite)." to run the tests. I've successfully installed Samba (as well as the other suggested options) and installed the blfs-bootscripts-20131023 install scripts to start the daemons. After installing the above stuff I rebooted and watched the progress of linux booting up. Each of the daemons smbd, nmbd and winding failed to install. Any clues as to what's going wrong? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Building Thunderbird
On 12/5/2013 12:31 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: > The first thing is that the build bailed out on me because I didn't have > gstreamer installed. That's not listed in any of the dependencies. > > I just wanted to get a working Thunderbird so that I wouldn't have to > keep rebooting to get to my e-mail. I have it, but I want it built with > all the system dependencies and right now it's not. My troubles with > NSS are documented in another thread. > > But I'm going to build it again, which leads to my next observation. > > In preparing for Firefox, the book, BLFS SVN, gives the procedure for > linking it agains XULrunner. (And I hope this isn't a mis-print, but > that the build time for Firefox drops from 55 to .3 SBU's. > Fantastic.). The page for Thunderbird says nothing about XULrunner. > I'm just making the assumption, and I would like someone to verify it, > that since Thunderbird also employs the gekko-engine it will also link > against XULrunner. Is this correct? > > I want to minimize the number of 50+ SBU builds. :-) By way of encouragement, between Tuesday and Wednesday I got Xulrunner, Firefox and Thunderbird installed, using the BLFS development branch. No problems, but I was surprised at the number of dependencies. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] Suggestions on Desktop Environment
I'm not far from choosing a Desktop Environment, which BLFS gives you choices of KDE, XFCE, LXDE to install. I use Gnome at work, an old version that comes with Redhat 5, and I understand that new versions get mixed reviews in online forums. I have no opinion, having no experience except with what comes with my Fedora 19 host system. Why does BLFS not do Gnome? I see that Gnome depends on systemd which BLFS does not support. Can anyone give me a few clues about the issues? I've used KDE before, where I used to work, and I was quite happy with it. Any comments on the relative merits of the three that BLFS recommends? Beyond the brief introductions in the BLFS book? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Trouble with OpenJDK-1.7.0.45/IcedTea-2.4.3Installation
On 12/3/2013 8:37 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote: > Le 03/12/2013 14:01, Alan Feuerbacher a écrit : >> In installing OpenJDK-1.7.0.45/IcedTea-2.4.3 I've got to the BLFS book's >> section "Configuring OpenJDK". I'm confused by the instructions. >> >> The 1st instruction says: >> >> <<<<<<<< >> There are now two OpenJDK SDKs installed in /opt. You should decide on >> which one you would like to use as the default. For example if you >> decide to use the precompiled OpenJDK, do the following as the root user: >> >> ln -v -nsf OpenJDK-1.7.0.45-bin /opt/jdk > This create a symbolic link /opt/jdk-->OpenJDK-1.7.0.45-bin, that is, > when you set: >>>>>>>>>> >> >> The 2nd instruction contains the line "JAVA_HOME=/opt/jdk". > JAVA_HOME is actually pointing to /opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.45-bin > Just remove '-bin' if you want to use the just compiled OpenJDK. >> >> The 3rd instruction has several references to "opt/jdk". >> >> The 4th instruction has the line "cd /opt/jdk". >> >> So these instructions assume that somewhere in the instructions above, >> the directory "/opt/jdk" has been created. > No. /opt/jdk is a pointer to a directory, not a directory itself. >> But nowhere above do I see >> that directory being created. >> >> The 1st instruction has you create a link that I don't understand. Since >> I want to use the COMPILED OpenJDK, I did not execute the "ln" command. >> After things did not work, I experimented and did this: >> >> mkdir /opt/jdk > Do not do that, just the next line (rmdir /opt/jdk first): >> ln -v -nsf OpenJDK-1.7.0.45 /opt/jdk >> >> This created a link in /opt/jdk: "OpenJDK-1.7.0.45 -> OpenJDK-1.7.0.45" >> which I don't understand. > There are some variations on the ln -s syntax: > ln -s , creates a symbolic link inside the directory > referred to by , whose name is , and pointing to ... > Now: > ln -s , creates a symbolic link , > pointing to , inside the directory refrred to by path2. If > path1 is a relative path, it is relative to path2. > > So, if the second argument is a path to a directory, it creates > something inside it. If it is a path to a non-existent file, it creates > that file. I think it fails if the second argument is an already > existing file. > > More information at "man ls". > > Regards > Pierre Thank you for explaining that. What you and Fernando explained is much clearer than what's in the man page for "ln". My mistake was in failing to note that when the BLFS book said that one option was to make this link: ln -v -nsf OpenJDK-1.7.0.45-bin /opt/jdk that the other option -- not explicitly stated but apparently implied -- was to make this link: ln -v -nsf OpenJDK-1.7.0.45 /opt/jdk Perhaps it would be helpful to relative beginners like me for these two options to be called out explicitly. I found the instructions ambiguous; hence my mistake. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] Trouble with OpenJDK-1.7.0.45/IcedTea-2.4.3 Installation
In installing OpenJDK-1.7.0.45/IcedTea-2.4.3 I've got to the BLFS book's section "Configuring OpenJDK". I'm confused by the instructions. The 1st instruction says: There are now two OpenJDK SDKs installed in /opt. You should decide on which one you would like to use as the default. For example if you decide to use the precompiled OpenJDK, do the following as the root user: ln -v -nsf OpenJDK-1.7.0.45-bin /opt/jdk The 2nd instruction contains the line "JAVA_HOME=/opt/jdk". The 3rd instruction has several references to "opt/jdk". The 4th instruction has the line "cd /opt/jdk". So these instructions assume that somewhere in the instructions above, the directory "/opt/jdk" has been created. But nowhere above do I see that directory being created. The 1st instruction has you create a link that I don't understand. Since I want to use the COMPILED OpenJDK, I did not execute the "ln" command. After things did not work, I experimented and did this: mkdir /opt/jdk ln -v -nsf OpenJDK-1.7.0.45 /opt/jdk This created a link in /opt/jdk: "OpenJDK-1.7.0.45 -> OpenJDK-1.7.0.45" which I don't understand. What's going wrong? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Problems Compiling Gimp, Gegl and Babl
On 11/16/2013 5:07 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > I don't have a /usr/include/babl directory or symlink. I've now > compiled and run a DESTDIR install of gimp-2.8.8 to be sure that > there isn't a problem in the current version. I had already built > gegl-0.2.0 and babl-0.1.10. I cannot replicate your problem. Well, I went back and recompiled babl, gegl and gimp from scratch, using Bruce's suggestion of using --disable-docs to configure gegl, and removing the hack links in /usr/include: babl -> babl-0.1 and gegl -> gegl-0.2. Then everything worked. And gegl, this time, constructed a proper pkg-config file, "gegl-02.pc" which gimp was obviously happy with. I don't fully understand this. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Problems Compiling Gimp, Gegl and Babl
On 11/16/2013 11:37 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Alan Feuerbacher wrote:
>> ...
>> babl-0.1.10 installed without a hitch, but put all of its libraries
>> and such in "babl-0.1" rather than in "babl".
>
> That is correct. Gimp should be getting info from babl.pc:
>
> Cflags: -I${includedir}/babl-0.1
> Libs: -L${libdir} -lbabl-0.1 -lm
That's what is happening alright. Likely the problems with compiling
gegl affected the above, but I don't see the connection.
> Gimp complained about
>> ...
>> In both cases make failed with:
>> ...
>
> Try configuring with --disable-docs. The problem is with makeinfo. I
> think that is fixed in texinfo-5.2. but there really is no need to
> regenerate the docs at all.
That switch worked, and gegl and gimp compiled successfully.
I began installing LFS and BLFS a few weeks ago, and in the meantime it
appears that a lot of updates have been made. So I installed texinfo-5.2
according to the latest instructions in SVN-20131105, and then tried
compiling gegl again. It failed with the same error as before.
Thanks!
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Problems Compiling Gimp, Gegl and Babl
On 11/16/2013 8:36 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Em 16-11-2013 08:51, Alan Feuerbacher escreveu: >> ... > > I have just installed it without problem. Perhaps, if you can install > gegl without modifications, and remove the links you added that are not > in the book would solve it. I would try fixing gegl's build and install, > first. I tried all those things. The links that I added were added AFTER building babl and gegl, and only to satisfy gimp's complaints. >> ... >> In both cases make failed with: >> ... >> make[3]: *** [api.html] Error 1 >> ... > > It is related to ruby. Yes, I read that in some of the FreeBSD-related comments online. > Are you using all switches in configure as in the book, or adding > --enable-gtk-doc? Try without it. I tried all combinations, but never with --enable-gtk-doc . > I found a post by ĸen about this problem, perhaps it will help you: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.support/44766 > > " Have you installed ruby ? Google has reports of that error message > with things using ruby. Perhaps fixable by ensuring LANG and LC_ALL > are both set to en_US.UTF-8 in the environment..." I found that post and tried setting those variables. No luck. > Anyway, ĸen knows much more about gelgl, babl and gimp. Ok. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] Problems Compiling Gimp, Gegl and Babl
I'm trying to install Gimp-2.8.8, following BLFS 7.4 Version 2013-11-14.
I've had some trouble with two dependencies, babl and gegl, as
described below.
For all these programs I first installed the required and recommended
dependencies, and many of the optional dependencies.
Below are comments for each problem area.
*===*===*===*===*===*
babl-0.1.10 installed without a hitch, but put all of its libraries
and such in "babl-0.1" rather than in "babl". Gimp complained about
that so I had to make a link:
ln -sv /usr/include/babl-0.1/babl /usr/include/babl
*===*===*===*===*===*
*===*===*===*===*===*
gegl-0.2.0 would not completely compile, so I tried configuring it
with and without the "--without-vala" switch, per the BLFS Command
Explanation:
"--without-vala: Do not create a vala API - use this if vapigen breaks
the build."
I don't know what this means, but I tried it anyway.
In both cases make failed with:
###
make[3]: Entering directory `/sources/gegl-0.2.0/docs'
GEGL_SWAP=RAM GEGL_PATH=../operations \
../tools/operation_reference --ops-html > operations.html
../tools/create-reference.rb\
../gegl/gegl.h \
../gegl/gegl-version.h \
../gegl/buffer/gegl-buffer.h\
../gegl/gegl-utils.h \
../gegl/property-types/gegl-color.h\
../gegl/gegl-matrix.h \
../gegl/property-types/gegl-path.h\
../gegl/property-types/gegl-curve.h\
api.html
../gegl/gegl.h
../tools/create-reference.rb:331:in `block (2 levels) in ':
invalid byte sequence in US-ASCII (ArgumentError)
from ../tools/create-reference.rb:325:in `foreach'
from ../tools/create-reference.rb:325:in `block in '
from ../tools/create-reference.rb:318:in `times'
from ../tools/create-reference.rb:318:in `'
make[3]: *** [api.html] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/sources/gegl-0.2.0/docs'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/gegl-0.2.0/docs'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/gegl-0.2.0'
make: *** [all] Error 2
###
An online search showed that others have had the same issue when
trying to install on FreeBSD, but I have not found a solution for Linux.
Running "make check" and "make install" mostly worked, I think,
but produced the same errors as above.
Similar to babl-0.1.10, gegl-0.2 put all of its libraries and such
in "gegl-0.2" rather than in "gegl". Gimp complained about that too,
so I made this link:
ln -sv /usr/include/gegl-0.2 /usr/include/gegl
The gimp configure also complained about not finding pkg-config
information on gegl, so I added the appropriate stuff with:
cat > /usr/lib/pkgconfig/gegl-0.2.pc << "EOF"
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=${prefix}
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib
includedir=${prefix}/include
Name: gegl-0.2
Description: GEneric Graphics Library
Version: 0.2.0
Cflags: -I${includedir}/gegl-0.2
Libs: -L${libdir} -lgegl-0.2 -lm
EOF
I'm assuming that the lack of a finished make step in compiling
gegl resulted in failure to create the appropriate pkg-config stuff.
*===*===*===*===*===*
*===*===*===*===*===*
Trying to install Gimp-2.8.8, following BLFS 7.4 Version 2013-11-14
Installed babl-0.1.10 and then gegl-0.2.0, along with their dependencies.
Used:
./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc
On my first try, configure complained that it couldn't find babl and gegl,
so I fixed it with:
ln -sv /usr/include/babl-0.1/babl /usr/include/babl
ln -sv /usr/include/gegl-0.2 /usr/include/gegl
Then make failed with this error:
#
CCLD gimp-2.8
/usr/bin/ld: gegl/libappgegl.a(gimp-gegl-utils.o): undefined reference
to symbol 'babl_format'
/usr/bin/ld: note: 'babl_format' is defined in DSO
/usr/lib64/libbabl-0.1.so.0 so try adding it to the linker command line
/usr/lib64/libbabl-0.1.so.0: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[4]: *** [gimp-2.8] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/gimp-2.8.8/app'
#
*===*===*===*===*===*
Any ideas what's going wrong?
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] System Still Will Not Mount Non-LFS Disks
On 10/31/2012 8:08 PM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: >> Then you need to go here: >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/lvm2.html and read >> some more about lvm2 and mounting LVM-volumes. > > I did that, recompiled the kernel with the suggested option, and > installed LVM2. Unfortunately, when I brought up the system again, there > were all sorts of errors. After entering "return" a few times to > requests of "continue?", the system shut down completely. > > Most of the errors had to do with filesystem problems. Since the system > shut down, I'm not sure how to look at the errors. I later realized that I had not recompiled the kernel correctly. I had left out the part in make menuconfig where some udev stuff had to be configured: Device Drivers ---> Generic Driver Options ---> Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev I recompiled the kernel correctly and now the system runs. Unfortunately I have more or less the same errors with mounting /dev/fedora and /dev/debian that I had at first, which sparked this set of emails. I ran the diagnostic from LVM2 "lvmdump". I could not find anything that looked amiss in its outputs. Here's the latest output of error messages and other relevant information in trying to get these mounts to work. This was run immediately after booting up: The directories /mnt/debian and /mnt/fedora exist: # root [ ~ ]# cd /mnt root [ /mnt ]# ls debian fedora # Trying to mount /mnt/debian # root [ ~ ]# mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian [ 3196.296804] EXT3-fs (sdb2): error: unable to read superblock [ 3196.304234] FAT-fs (sdb2): bogus number of reserved sectors [ 3196.305150] FAT-fs (sdb2): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem [ 3196.313195] FAT-fs (sdb2): bogus number of reserved sectors [ 3196.314078] FAT-fs (sdb2): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem [ 3196.322066] isofs_fill_super: bread failed, dev=sdb2, iso_blknum=16, block=32 mount: you must specify the filesystem type root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext3 /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian [ 3263.291892] EXT3-fs (sdb2): error: unable to read superblock mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb2, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so # Trying to mount /mnt/fedora # root [ ~ ]# mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/fedora mount: unknown filesystem type 'LVM2_member' root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext4 /dev/sda2 /mnt/fedora mount: unknown filesystem type 'ext4' # Contents of /etc/fstab: # root [ ~ ]# cat /etc/fstab # Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order /dev/sdc1 /bootext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc5 swap swap pri=1 0 0 /dev/sdc6 /ext3 defaults1 1 /dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc11 /var ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc13 /homeext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sr0 /dev/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 proc /procproc nosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfsnosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /run tmpfsdefaults0 0 devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs mode=0755,nosuid0 0 /dev/sda2 /mnt/fedora auto noauto0 0 /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian auto noauto0 0 # End /etc/fstab # Contents of /etc/mtab: # root [ ~ ]# cat /etc/mtab /dev/sdc6 / ext3 rw 0 0 proc /proc proc rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0 tmpfs /run tmpfs rw 0 0 devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs rw,nosuid,mode=0755 0 0 /dev/sdc1 /boot ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc11 /var ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 rw 0 0 /dev/sdc13 /home ext3 rw 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts rw,gid=5,mode=620 0 0 # From the above, it seems that the kernel does not recognize the /mnt/fedora and /mnt/debian devices, even with LVM2 running. The output of "lvmdump -a -m -u -d lvmdump.dump" # root [ ~ ]# ls dmesg.out junk1 junkjunk junkjunkjunk junkstartup
Re: [blfs-support] System Still Will Not Mount Non-LFS Disks
On 10/31/2012 8:49 AM, Thomas de Roo wrote: >> Apparently so. When I do fdisk -l, /dev/sda2 (Fedora is installed on >> /dev/sda) is listed with system type "Linux LVM". > Then you need to go here: > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/lvm2.html and read > some more about lvm2 and mounting LVM-volumes. I did that, recompiled the kernel with the suggested option, and installed LVM2. Unfortunately, when I brought up the system again, there were all sorts of errors. After entering "return" a few times to requests of "continue?", the system shut down completely. Most of the errors had to do with filesystem problems. Since the system shut down, I'm not sure how to look at the errors. Any ideas? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] System Still Will Not Mount Non-LFS Disks
On 10/31/2012 5:13 AM, Thomas de Roo wrote: > Did you use LVM in Fedora? Apparently so. When I do fdisk -l, /dev/sda2 (Fedora is installed on /dev/sda) is listed with system type "Linux LFM". Of course, this is a normal Fedora distro and I accepted whatever the normal installation parameters were offered. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] System Still Will Not Mount Non-LFS Disks
On 10/30/2012 9:15 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > As root: > > mkdir -p /mnt/debian /mnt/fedora > mount -t ext3 /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian > mount -t ext4 /dev/sda2 /mnt/fedora That worked for the debian mount but not for the fedora mount: # root [ ~ ]# mkdir -p /mnt/debian /mnt/fedora root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext3 /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian [ 7007.133976] EXT3-fs (sdb2): error: unable to read superblock mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb2, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext3 /dev/sdb1 /mnt/debian [ 7034.908476] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds [ 7034.909005] EXT3-fs (sdb1): warning: maximal mount count reached, running e2fsck is recommended [ 7034.909908] EXT3-fs (sdb1): using internal journal [ 7034.910476] EXT3-fs (sdb1): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext4 /dev/sda2 /mnt/fedora mount: unknown filesystem type 'ext4' root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext4 /dev/sda1 /mnt/fedora mount: unknown filesystem type 'ext4' root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext3 /dev/sda1 /mnt/fedora [ 7132.816822] EXT3-fs (sda1): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported optional features (240) mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda1, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so root [ ~ ]# ls -l /mnt total 8 drwxr-xr-x 22 root root 4096 Oct 20 23:47 debian drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Oct 31 02:16 fedora root [ ~ ]# cd /mnt/debian root [ /mnt/debian ]# ls bin boot dev etc home initrd.img initrd.img.old lib lib64 lost +found media missing.xml mnt opt proc root sbin selinux srv sys tmp tools usr var vmlinuz vmlinuz.old root [ /mnt/debian ]# cd /mnt/fedora root [ /mnt/fedora ]# ls root [ /mnt/fedora ]# # I can't make any sense of this. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Bugs in BLFS Book
On 10/30/2012 9:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> # is: >> cd /usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.79/doc/testdata >> # It should be: >> >> cd >> /usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.79/docbook-dsssl-1.79/doc/testdata > > I think you may have omitted something earlier. We do: > > install -v -d -m755 /usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.79 && > cp -v -R * /usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.79 > > That's where the testdata directory is created. You're running into the same problem that I did, and it took me a few go-arounds to see what was happening. The problem is that the directory in which the stuff is built -- docbook-dsssl-1.79 -- contains both "doc" and "docbook-dsssl-1.79" directories. But "doc" is empty, whereas "docbook-dsssl-1.79" contains "doc/testdata". So what I listed above for "cd /usr/share." is necessary. Perhaps the directory was changed inadvertantly by the package builders. >> # For docbook-xsl-1.77.1 there's an incorrect couple of instructions: >> # >> install -v -m644 -D README \ >> /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 && >> install -v -m755RELEASE-NOTES* NEWS* \ >> /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 >> # > > The first command is correct. See the man page for install -D, but the > 2nd command should be -m644. I'll fix that. I've experimented with install -D and it does not do what the above line seems to want to do. What it does is create "/usr/share/doc/" and then copy README into a FILE named "docbook-xsl-1.77.1" within "/usr/share/doc/". That's why I think that install -d is the way to go. In any case, what I put in my email is what I had to do to get the program test stuff to install and work. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] System Still Will Not Mount Non-LFS Disks
I still can't get the LFS build to recognize hard drives other than the one it's built on. Here is some output upon booting up: Immediately after booting up, I did these commands: # root [ ~ ]# mount -l /dev/sdc6 on / type ext3 (rw) proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) tmpfs on /run type tmpfs (rw) devtmpfs on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) /dev/sdc1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc7 on /usr type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc8 on /opt type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc9 on /usr/local type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc10 on /usr/src type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc11 on /var type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc12 on /tmp type ext3 (rw) /dev/sdc13 on /home type ext3 (rw) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) root [ ~ ]# mount /mnt/debian mount: mount point /mnt/debian does not exist root [ ~ ]# mount /dev/sdb2 mount: mount point /mnt/debian does not exist root [ ~ ]# mount -t ext3 /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian mount: mount point /mnt/debian does not exist # Here's the filesystem table: # # Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order /dev/sdc1 /bootext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc5 swap swap pri=1 0 0 /dev/sdc6 /ext3 defaults1 1 /dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc11 /var ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sdc13 /homeext3 defaults1 2 /dev/sr0 /dev/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0/dev/fd0 /media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 proc /procproc nosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfsnosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /run tmpfsdefaults0 0 devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs mode=0755,nosuid0 0 /dev/sda2 /mnt/fedora ext4 noauto0 0 /dev/sdb2 /mnt/debian ext3 noauto0 0 # End /etc/fstab # I changed the "ext4" and "ext3" in the last two fstab lines to "auto" and still got the error "mount point ... does not exist". Here's the full output from fdisk: # Disk /dev/sda: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0006e27f Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 *2048 1026047 512000 83 Linux /dev/sda2 1026048 2930276351 1464625152 8e Linux LVM Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0004d4ee Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 *2048 1940344831 970171392 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 1940346878 1953523711 65884175 Extended Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sdb5 1940346880 1953523711 6588416 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytesI/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000d8cec Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 *2048 602111 300032 83 Linux /dev/sdc2 602112 976773119 4880855045 Extended /dev/sdc5 61047017382329 8385930 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sdc6173834245932646320971520 83 Linux /dev/sdc759328512 10127155120971520 83 Linux /dev/sdc8 101273600 20613119952428800 83 Linux /dev/sdc9 206133248 31099084752428800 83 Linux /dev/sdc10 310992896 520708095 104857600 83 Linux /dev/sdc11 520710144 531195903 5242880 83 Linux /dev/sdc12 531197952 55216947110485760 83 Linux /dev/sdc13 552171520 976773119 212300800 83 Linux Disk /dev/sdd: 300.1 GB, 300069052416 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 36481 cylinders, total 586072368 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes
[blfs-support] Bugs in BLFS Book
Here are some bugs I found in the BLFS book: The stuff below is from my notes in building BLFS software: # Installing docbook-dsssl-1.79 http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/pst/docbook-dsssl.html # The first command in the testing section: Testing the DocBook SGML Toolchain (Optional) # is: cd /usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.79/doc/testdata # It should be: cd /usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.79/docbook-dsssl-1.79/doc/testdata # For docbook-xsl-1.77.1 there's an incorrect couple of instructions: # install -v -m644 -D README \ /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 && install -v -m755RELEASE-NOTES* NEWS* \ /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 # # This should be something like (except I'm not sure about the permissions): # install -v -m755 -d \ /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 && install -v -m644 README \ /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 && install -v -m755RELEASE-NOTES* NEWS* \ /usr/share/doc/docbook-xsl-1.77.1 # -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 6:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I think the FAIL was for something else. If your network is working, > you should be able to ping 192.168.0.1 or whatever your gateway is. > > What are the contents of /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0. You did update > it for your network, right? I just discovered something else that might bear on my network configuration problem: /etc/hosts contains the lines (among others): 127.0.0.1 localhost 127.0.1.1 lfs-alan.alandomain lfs-alan I'm not really sure how I arrived at those addresses because it was some time ago. Anyway, I've given my machine the hostname lfs-alan. I don't understand how the above addresses relate to those in the ifconfig.eth0 file as I laid out in my previous email. Can you clue me in? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 6:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I'm glad you got it to work, but you made a mounting error when you > created the files for grub. What error? I'm probably missing something important about mounting. > For instance, from your host system, try > > mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt > ls /mnt > > You should not have /mnt/boot, but just the kernel, config, grub > directory, etc. That's correct: [root@alan-fedora alan]# mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt [root@alan-fedora alan]# ls /mnt config-3.5.2 grub lost+found System.map-3.5.2 vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 Once I did that mount command, I couldn't access any other directories on /dev/sdc1. What's going on? Normally, in building LFS and BLFS stuff, I fire up a Fedora terminal and can access the entire LFS tree by commands like cd /mnt/lfs/sources/ . But after doing the above mount command, that did not work. And I couldn't umount /mnt or /dev/sdc1 because umount complained that the system was busy. So I just rebooted. > I think the FAIL was for something else. If your network is working, > you should be able to ping 192.168.0.1 or whatever your gateway is. I can ping 127.0.0.1 which is "GATEWAY" in ifconfig.eth0 below. > What are the contents of /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0. You did update > it for your network, right? I did: [alan@alan-fedora sysconfig]$ cat ifconfig.eth0 ONBOOT=yes IFACE=eth0 SERVICE=ipv4-static IP=127.0.0.0 GATEWAY=127.0.0.1 PREFIX=24 BROADCAST=127.255.255.255 I was pretty confused after reading the material in LFS 7.2.2 on network configuration. The numbers I picked above are from Fedora and/or Debian, and I'm not really sure if I chose the right network addresses. Normally one would talk to a competent network administrator, but I'm that guy and I'm very new at this, and I really don't know what I'm doing. But I've slogged ahead to this point and will keep going. I tried firing up lynx with http://linuxfromscratch.org and it could not connect, so whatever I've done to configure networking is not correct. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 5:53 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > And also, the error message supposedly references vmlinux (with an > 'x') instead of vmlinuz with a 'z'. *Perhaps* these are typos when > copying the message, but with boot loaders it is best not to upset > them - so please check that what you added to grub.cfg is what you > intended to add ;) You're right, of course, and that's what I do as long as I stay on one computer. Trouble comes from trying to type on two keyboards and looking at two different displays. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 5:27 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > I am referring to > 3.5.2-lfs-7.2 > > The message has > 3.5.2-7.2 > > without lfs. > > Repeating in different way: > > It is complaining that > > vmlinux-3.5.2-7.2 is not found > > But in his grub.cfg, I read > > vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2, in the linux line. > > So, where that 3.5.2-7.2 comes from? It comes from my bad typing from one computer to another. I'm actually using a Windows 7 machine for most email, because it has an LED display big enough for me to see well. The old Linux experimental machine is displaying on an old CRT display that has relatively poor resolution. Sorry for the typos. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Success!
> You should be able to do
>
> linux (hd0,msdos6)/
> and have a list of files show up. Then fill out the rest of the line.
I ended up with this in grub.cfg :
# Begin /boot/grub/grub.cfg
set default=0
set timeout=5
insmod ext2
set root=(hd0,msdos6)
menuentry "GNU/Linux, Linux 3.5.2-lfs-7.2" {
linux /boot/vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc6 ro
}
I'm surprised, given all that I've read, that the /boot in front of
vmlinuz... was necessary.
> But didn't you have /boot on sdc1? I'd think that
> linux (hd0,msdos1)/ would work.
That's where /boot is alright. I suppose I can try that out, but that
will be later.
>>> Since you loaded grub on hdc, grub evidently thinks hdc is (hd0).
>>
>> Is that what one would expect?
>
> I'm not sure. Maybe. However, I've always kept /boot on sda. In one
> case sda1 and another sda3. If I set up a raw system, I will use sda1
> for /boot.
I wanted to keep all LFS stuff physically separate from the Fedora and
Debian installations that are each on separate hard disks. I'm familiar
enough with Murphy's Law that I tend to do such things as a matter of
course.
Anyway, thanks so much for your help!
By the way, the suggestion at the end of the LFS book (Sect. 9.3) about
installing some BLFS software is excellent. GPM is working, as are a
bunch of other system daemons. I guess I'll be spending time making sure
that a lot of this stuff is working.
The only failure of startup stuff was this:
[ 10.249881] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready
Setting up default gateway...RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
[ FAIL ]
Then after a few more startup lines:
lfs-alan login: [ . . . e1000e: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex,
Flow Control: Rx/Tx
... IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready
It appears to me that the FAIL was resolved, no?
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 4:41 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> error: file '/vmlinux-3.5.2-7.2' not found. > > Progress. > > From the grub command line, enter: > > linux (hd0,msdos6)/vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc6 ro > boot No luck. Same error, so I couldn't do "boot". > I suspect that (hd0,6)/vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc6 ro > would work also. > > Since you loaded grub on hdc, grub evidently thinks hdc is (hd0). Is that what one would expect? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 3:59 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> error: file '/vmlinux-3.5.2-7.2' not found.
>
> From the grub screen, type the letter c. You will get a prompt command.
> From there, type 'ls' to see what grub thinks is right.
>
> You can use set root=(hd0,1), (hd1,1), (hd2,1) etc to move around and
> see how grub sees the drives. You can also use:
>
> grub> ls (hd2,1)/boot
>
> And so forth to look at directories in different partitions.
After fiddling with this for awhile it turned out that the only "ls ..."
line that showed the right files was:
ls (hd0,msdos6)/boot
It lists exactly the files and directories that are in /boot .
So I modified the grub.cfg file to:
set root=(hd0,msdos6)
menuentry "GNU/Linux, Linux 3.5.2-lfs-7.2" {
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc6 ro
But I still get the same error:
error: file '/vmlinux-3.5.2-7.2' not found.
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 4:07 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> error: file '/vmlinux-3.5.2-7.2' not found. > Is it really the message? Shouldn't it be vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2? Yes, that's the message. But when I edit the "/" out in the grub editor and reboot, I get the same error message but without the "/". Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 2:24 PM, Armin K. wrote: >> /dev/sdc1 /bootext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc5 swap swap pri=1 0 0 >> /dev/sdc6 /ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc11 /var ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sdc13 /homeext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 >> /dev/sr0 /dev/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 >> /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 >> proc /procproc nosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 >> sysfs /sys sysfsnosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 >> devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 >> tmpfs /run tmpfsdefaults0 0 >> devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs mode=0755,nosuid0 0 >> >> # End /etc/fstab >> > > I am not sure why you did select such partitioning scheme, but well ... > > Today most common desktop setups have split / and /home - nothing else After a lot of reading, it seemed to me that the consensus is to put the various things above on their own separate partitions. Comments? > Your "set root" should be (hd2,1) > linux line should contain /vmlinuz-rightversion root=/dev/sdc6 > > remember, no /boot is needed on vmlinuz line if /boot is on seperate > partition but "set root" should point to the /boot partition itself. My latest attempt is in my latest reply to Bruce Dubbs and you. Comments? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 2:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'm using advice from Bruce and Armin here.
> You need to tell us where /mnt/lfs is located. For example:
In the fedora system:
[alan@alan-fedora ~]$ mount | grep lfs
/dev/sdc6 on /mnt/lfs type ext3 (rw,relatime,seclabel,data=ordered)
> Use that value when booting, perhaps:
>
> linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc6 ro
In the chroot environment in LFS:
root:/# cat /boot/grub/grub.cfg
# Begin /boot/grub/grub.cfg
set default=0
set timeout=5
insmod ext2
set root=(hd2,1)
menuentry "GNU/Linux, Linux 3.5.2-lfs-7.2" {
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc6 ro
}
> If you are using /dev/sdc6, I wouldn't use acl,user_xattr in the mount
> options until you have gone a bit further. Just use defaults for now.
>
> Also, the only partition that should have a fsck order number of 1 is
> the root partition. The others should be 2.
How's this:
root:/home/lfs# cat /etc/fstab
# Begin /etc/fstab
# file system mount-point type options dump fsck
# order
/dev/sdc1 /bootext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc5 swap swap pri=1 0 0
/dev/sdc6 /ext3 defaults1 1
/dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc11 /var ext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sdc13 /homeext3 defaults1 2
/dev/sr0 /dev/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0
/dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0
proc /procproc nosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0
sysfs /sys sysfsnosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0
devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0
tmpfs /run tmpfsdefaults0 0
devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs mode=0755,nosuid0 0
# End /etc/fstab
I still end up with:
error: file '/vmlinux-3.5.2-7.2' not found.
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 1:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> In trying to figure out what's going wrong, I found an apparent conflict >> between what grub manuals say and what the LFS book says about grub's >> partition numbering scheme. The book says that grub numbers the >> partitions starting from one, but the online info I've read says that it >> starts from zero. > > That's referring to GRUB-1, not GRUB-2. Ok. > I can't figure out which partition is /mnt/lfs. It looks like /dev/sdc1 > is mounted as /boot, so grub should be finding the kernel, but it looks > like root=/dev/sdc1 in the linux line is wrong. It should be the same > partition as /mnt/lfs on the host. Here is /etc/fstab: # Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order /dev/sdc1 /bootext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc5 swap swap pri=1 0 0 /dev/sdc6 /ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc11 /var ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc13 /homeext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sr0 /dev/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 proc /procproc nosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfsnosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /run tmpfsdefaults0 0 devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs mode=0755,nosuid0 0 # End /etc/fstab -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 1:14 PM, Armin K. wrote: > Forgive me if I missed something, I just did a quick read. > > You cannot use /boot device node as root parameter. You need to use the > correct partition that / is on and I don't see that one in mount output. Here is /etc/fstab: # Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order /dev/sdc1 /bootext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc5 swap swap pri=1 0 0 /dev/sdc6 /ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc7 /usr ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc8 /opt ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc9 /usr/local ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc10 /usr/src ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc11 /var ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc12 /tmp ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sdc13 /homeext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 1 /dev/sr0 /dev/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 /dev/fd0/media/floppy0 autorw,user,noauto 0 0 proc /procproc nosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfsnosuid,noexec,nodev 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 tmpfs /run tmpfsdefaults0 0 devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs mode=0755,nosuid0 0 # End /etc/fstab -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
On 10/28/2012 1:12 PM, spiky wrote: >> [root@alan-fedora ~]# fdisk -l >>. . . >> Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes >>. . . >> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >> /dev/sdc1 *2048 602111 300032 83 Linux >> '. . . >> root:/# mount -l >> /dev/sdc1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) >> /dev/sdc8 on /opt type ext3 (rw,user_xattr) >> . . . > Do you have a boot partition if not you might want to try linux > /boot/vmlinuz Yes. Please see the above info from fdisk and mount. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] Errors on Booting LFS the First Time
I'm trying to boot my shiny new LFS 7.2 system for the first time. I
think I followed the LFS book carefully, but I get boot errors no matter
what I try in configuring the boot script grub.cfg.
My system is an older custom one with an Intel motherboard and
processor, and three hard disks:
/dev/sda for fedora
/dev/sdb for debian
/dev/sdc for LFS
I'm using this system to play around with Linux.
In trying to figure out what's going wrong, I found an apparent conflict
between what grub manuals say and what the LFS book says about grub's
partition numbering scheme. The book says that grub numbers the
partitions starting from one, but the online info I've read says that it
starts from zero. Since I don't know better, I've tried both ways. I've
also tried different combinations of parameters in the grub.cfg file, as
shown below.
Here's the grub.cfg file set up according to the LFS book:
root:/boot/grub# cat grub.cfg
# Begin /boot/grub/grub.cfg
set default=0
set timeout=5
insmod ext2
set root=(hd2,1)
menuentry "GNU/Linux, Linux 3.5.2-lfs-7.2" {
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc1 ro
}
Here are the variations I've tried, and the errors produced upon trying
to boot:
According to the LFS book and the above grub.cfg:
With set root=(hd2,1)
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc1 ro
error: file '/vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2' not found.
Several variations:
With set root=(hd2,1)
linux vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc1 ro
error: invlaid file name 'vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2'.
With set root=(hd2,0)
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc0 ro
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc1 ro
linux vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc0 ro
linux vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc1 ro
error: no such partition
Here are printouts showing relevant info about what's in the system:
# As root in the Fedora system:
[root@alan-fedora ~]# fdisk -l
. . .
Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
. . .
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdc1 *2048 602111 300032 83 Linux
/dev/sdc2 602112 976773119 4880855045 Extended
/dev/sdc5 61047017382329 8385930 82 Linux swap /
Solaris
/dev/sdc6173834245932646320971520 83 Linux
/dev/sdc759328512 10127155120971520 83 Linux
/dev/sdc8 101273600 20613119952428800 83 Linux
/dev/sdc9 206133248 31099084752428800 83 Linux
/dev/sdc10 310992896 520708095 104857600 83 Linux
/dev/sdc11 520710144 531195903 5242880 83 Linux
/dev/sdc12 531197952 55216947110485760 83 Linux
/dev/sdc13 552171520 976773119 212300800 83 Linux
Here I change over to the LFS system:
[root@alan-fedora grub]# su - lfs
lfs:~$ source ~/.bash_profile
lfs:~$ su root
Password:
root:/home/lfs# mount -v --bind /dev $LFS/dev
root:/home/lfs# mount -vt devpts devpts $LFS/dev/pts
root:/home/lfs# mount -vt proc proc $LFS/proc
root:/home/lfs# mount -vt sysfs sysfs $LFS/sys
root:/home/lfs# if [ -h /dev/shm ]; then
>rm -f $LFS/dev/shm
>mkdir $LFS/dev/shm
> fi
root:/home/lfs# mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/dev/shm
root:/home/lfs# mount -v --bind /dev $LFS/dev
root:/home/lfs# /usr/sbin/chroot "$LFS" /tools/bin/env -i \
> HOME=/root \
> TERM="$TERM"\
> PS1='\u:\w\$ ' \
> PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/tools/bin \
> /tools/bin/bash --login +h
root:/#
root:/# mount -l
/dev/sdc1 on /boot type ext3 (rw)
/dev/sdc8 on /opt type ext3 (rw,user_xattr)
shm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
/dev on /dev type none (rw,bind)
root:/# cd /boot
root:/boot# ls -l
total 7376
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 84618 Oct 28 06:41 config-3.5.2
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root4096 Oct 28 07:57 grub
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2078325 Oct 28 06:41 System.map-3.5.2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5359664 Oct 28 06:41 vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2
root:/boot# cd grub
root:/boot/grub# ls -l
total 24
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 190 Oct 28 07:57 grub.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024 Oct 28 06:45 grubenv
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 12288 Oct 28 06:45 i386-pc
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Oct 28 06:45 locale
root:/boot/grub# cat grub.cfg
# Begin /boot/grub/grub.cfg
set default=0
set timeout=5
insmod ext2
set root=(hd2,1)
menuentry "GNU/Linux, Linux 3.5.2-lfs-7.2" {
linux /vmlinuz-3.5.2-lfs-7.2 root=/dev/sdc1 ro
}
Any help will be very much appreciated.
Alan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
