Re: perl-5.12.0
On April 15, 2010 05:05:45 pm Bruce Dubbs wrote: The problem seems to be using the -Dstatic_ext='Data/Dumper Fcntl IO POSIX' option. If I omit POSIX, the build completes. I don't recall the background of that switch. Does anyone remember the issues here? I can't find much of anything in regards to POSIX being added, maybe just trying to trim chapter 5? http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/changeset/3312/trunk/newxml/chapter05/perl.xml -- Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: fstab dump/fs_freq
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:25:16 Trent Shea wrote: As dump/restore is not part of LFS or BLFS should this field be 0 for all rows? CCing because I think it may be appropriate to modify the book? The sample /etc/fstab in chapter 8 has the mount point listed as swap, the man page says: The second field, (fs_file), describes the mount point for the filesystem. For swap partitions, this field should be specified as `none'. If the name of the mount point contains spaces these can be escaped as `\040'. -- Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Testing 6.6-rc1 with -j for Makefiles
On Friday 05 February 2010 21:34:00 Bruce Dubbs wrote: But that didn't have much affect on the build times other than making gawk crash during the tests. I'll have to investigate Chapter 6 some more. It looks like the following hasn't been touched in a few years and it may not even apply to today's versions of the packages... But, anyway... There are some notes in jhalfs in the optimize folder (well, in some of the files) For instance these are blacklisted and would probably warrant investigation: in opt_config: BLACK_LIST=autoconf dejagnu gettext groff man-db in opt_override: binutils noOpt gccnoOpt glibc noOpt grub noOpt zlib defOpt_fPIC -- Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Testing 6.6-rc1 with -j for Makefiles
On Saturday 06 February 2010 00:57:46 Bryan Kadzban wrote: I assume you have a dual-core CPU -- have you tried -j3? Any higher? The following page suggests jobs=num_core*1.5. http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/parallel_make.html I can't find a good supporting document right now, but I also read to use jobs=num_cores+1 -- Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: GCC Test report LFS-6.6-rc1
On Thursday 04 February 2010 19:39:50 Bruce Dubbs wrote: Looking through the test logs, I get: gcc: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/bb-reorg.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr34999.c compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE Scanning through the logs on a SVN-20100128 - jhalfs build I don't see anything similar. I'll be starting another jhalfs soon and I'm hoping to find time to build manually while reading through the book again, it's been far too long. My host is a 32bit LFS-6.5 system, I believe the only thing I did was modify the the book source to build with a 2.6.31.1 kernel. === gcc Summary === # of expected passes57701 # of expected failures 191 # of unsupported tests 443 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.4.3 (GCC) === libgomp tests === Running target unix === libgomp Summary === # of expected passes1009 === libmudflap tests === Running target unix FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx execution test FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-static) execution test FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-O2) execution test FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-O3) execution test === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes1890 # of unexpected failures4 === libstdc++ tests === Running target unix XPASS: 26_numerics/headers/cmath/c99_classification_macros_c.cc (test for excess errors) === libstdc++ Summary === # of expected passes5874 # of unexpected successes 1 # of expected failures 79 # of unsupported tests 336 -- Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: GRUB2 Hint
On Saturday 12 September 2009 11:14:59 Bruce Dubbs wrote: I have written a GRUB2 hint at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/grub2.txt The intent was to prototype a change to the book's section 8.4. I'd appreciate it if some of you would try out the instructions and give me feedback. Looks good Bruce. I just followed your hint to boot into a fresh lfs-6.5 system built on an ext4 partition. The only deviation I made from your instructions was to append /dev/sda to the command in step four - no biggie. Thanks for the hint, this saved me a lot of time today. Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: zlib instructions - 'rm /lib/libz.so'?
CCing Development List On Sunday 13 September 2009 16:40:59 you wrote: thanks. I would have read given this straightforward and direct answer (dont remember this bit from my reading; and I would have expected the book to make a note of it if it was about FHS compliance) Agreed, the book does mention FHS compliance when other packages move files around. It's probably worth opening a ticket regarding this. Good catch. Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Building LFS 6.5 on Ubuntu
On Thursday 20 August 2009 03:00:33 Matthew Burgess wrote: It can search for package names, but I also find the 2nd form on that page Search the contents of packages really useful when I know what header file (or lib) I'm missing and haven't a clue what package they may have packaged it in. Also useful is 'dpkg -S missingheader.h' Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: perl segmentation fault (finally solved!!)
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 02:09:06 Tobias Gasser wrote: once again the bug just was sitting in front of the screen... Ditto... Glad to see you worked through it though! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
gdbm-1.8.3
Hi, Just a heads up, some installed files are owned by the incorrect user. BLFS has the work around. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
grub-0.97 test failure
Has anyone experienced this error when running make check on grub-0.97? The test fails when building trunk Revision: 8935 (in chroot, and if I boot into the 6.5 system and build.) make[3]: Entering directory `/grub-0.97/stage2' ffs_stage1_5 is too big (8008 7168). FAIL: size_test = 1 of 1 tests failed Please report to bug-g...@gnu.org = make[3]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/grub-0.97/stage2' make[2]: *** [check-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/grub-0.97/stage2' make[1]: *** [check] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/grub-0.97/stage2' I eventually got it to pass the test by using the following CFLAGS: export CFLAGS=-march=i486 -mtune=native -Os I copied the first flags from the glibc section and had to add '-Os' to get the size down. I'm really out of my element here, so any review on this approach would be appreciated. I referenced http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/CFLAGS for the '-Os' flag. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:09:35 Trent Shea wrote:
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-mutex5.out] Error 1
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-mutex9.out] Error 1
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-mutex5a.out] Error 1
Alright, I believe that these errors are triggered when running a kernel
version greater than 2.6.28.10.
For tst-mutex5, the attached diff shows where the test failure occurs. I've
tried increasing the Wait 2 seconds section, with no success.
Another note regarding the 2.6.29.4 kernel headers. When running make
headers_check there are many 'leaks' and 'extern's make no sense in userspace'
messages, the 2.6.28.10 kernel does not produce these messages. Maybe an
explanation regarding these messages could be considered?
Trent.
--- /home/trent-main/glibc-2.10.1/nptl/tst-mutex5.c 2006-07-28 22:27:22.0 -0600
+++ ../glibc-2.10.1/nptl/tst-mutex5.c 2009-05-27 11:29:24.0 -0600
@@ -97,7 +97,10 @@
ts.tv_sec += 2; /* Wait 2 seconds. */
+
+ printf (test1);
err = pthread_mutex_timedlock (m, ts);
+ printf (test2);
if (err == 0)
{
puts (timedlock succeeded);
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:09:35 Trent Shea wrote:
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-mutex5.out] Error 1
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-mutex9.out] Error 1
make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-mutex5a.out] Error 1
Alright, I believe that these errors are triggered when running a kernel
version greater than 2.6.28.10.
For tst-mutex5, the attached diff shows where the test failure occurs. I've
tried increasing the Wait 2 seconds section, with no success.
Another note regarding the 2.6.29.4 kernel headers. When running make
headers_check there are many 'leaks' and 'extern's make no sense in userspace'
messages, the 2.6.28.10 kernel does not produce these messages. Maybe an
explanation regarding these messages could be considered?
Trent.
--- /home/trent-main/glibc-2.10.1/nptl/tst-mutex5.c 2006-07-28 22:27:22.0 -0600
+++ ../glibc-2.10.1/nptl/tst-mutex5.c 2009-05-27 11:29:24.0 -0600
@@ -97,7 +97,10 @@
ts.tv_sec += 2; /* Wait 2 seconds. */
+
+ printf (test1);
err = pthread_mutex_timedlock (m, ts);
+ printf (test2);
if (err == 0)
{
puts (timedlock succeeded);
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 12:13:09 Bruce Dubbs wrote: That's interesting. I don't see those errors, but perhaps that's because I'm building on an LFS-6.4 system with a 2.6.27.4 kernel. The errors were only triggered by having the 'bad' kernel version running. Another note regarding the 2.6.29.4 kernel headers. When running make headers_check there are many 'leaks' and 'extern's make no sense in userspace' messages, the 2.6.28.10 kernel does not produce these messages. Maybe an explanation regarding these messages could be considered? I haven't seen these either. Are you building 6.5 on a 6.5 system? I've had these kind of messages for some time. They can also be viewed on ubuntu by unpacking the kernel source and running make headers_check on versions later than 2.6.28.10. It's possible these messages were added to help kernel developers, but I haven't had a chance to research this yet. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 13:30:32 Bruce Dubbs wrote: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0812.3/01339.html Thanks for the link. I went ahead and got linux-2.6.30-rc7 (2.6.29 + patch) and make headers_check only gives: Snip So it looks like they are working on it. Yea, I've noticed the messages dwindling. This might be one to leave alone, and if there's a lot of hits on the support list add something to the errata? At least now search of the lfs forums should lead right to an answer for the curious. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Next time somebody arrives at Chapter 5 - GCC Pass 2, please try the following...
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 18:42:37 Gerard Beekmans wrote: Hiya, Next time somebody arrives at Chapter 5 - GCC Pass 2, can you deviate slightly from the book and try out the change mentioned in Ticket #2413 at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2413 I just deleted my Chapter 5 so I was wondering if one of you guys is already in the process of running a test. If so, it'd be appreciated if you can try out the suggested change in that ticket. Its milestone is currently 7.0 but I think it makes a fine 6.5 candidate as it's a quick easy one. Gerard The two commands behave differently. Original: for file in \ $(find gcc/config -name linux64.h -o -name linux.h -o -name sysv4.h) do echo $file; done gcc/config/mips/linux.h gcc/config/mips/linux64.h gcc/config/xtensa/linux.h gcc/config/linux.h gcc/config/mn10300/linux.h gcc/config/m68k/linux.h gcc/config/ia64/linux.h gcc/config/ia64/sysv4.h gcc/config/sh/linux.h gcc/config/frv/linux.h gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h gcc/config/rs6000/linux64.h gcc/config/rs6000/sysv4.h gcc/config/s390/linux.h gcc/config/cris/linux.h gcc/config/m32r/linux.h gcc/config/alpha/linux.h gcc/config/i386/linux.h gcc/config/i386/linux64.h gcc/config/i386/sysv4.h gcc/config/sparc/linux.h gcc/config/sparc/linux64.h gcc/config/sparc/sysv4.h gcc/config/bfin/linux.h New: for file in gcc/config/linux64.h gcc/config/linux.h gcc/config/sysv4.h; do echo $file; done gcc/config/linux64.h gcc/config/linux.h gcc/config/sysv4.h Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Monday 25 May 2009 00:53:33 Bruce Dubbs wrote: I don't get the nptl or rt errors. Those errors disappear on an ubuntu host. leaving the expected: make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fgetwc.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [libio/tests] Error 2 make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[1]: *** [check] Error 2 I'll run these tests again on the LFS-6.4 host. The errors have varied each run, and I'm beginning to suspect they are caused by system load. I know how to fix tst-fgetwc. It requires a change to libio/tst-fgetwc.c and libio/Makefile. Thanks Bruce. I'll give everything a run tonight with your proposed change. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 14:20:58 Bruce Dubbs wrote: I've been going through the -dev book manually and have run into a problem at the start of Chapter 6. The build of glibc-2.10.1 goes without a problem, but make check fails even with the -k parameter: Taken from a 6.4 build in March: make[2]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.8-20080929' make[1]: *** [check] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-build' The only deviation with that build being the kernel version used, 2.6.29. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 16:01:47 Bruce Dubbs wrote: root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ildoubl.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [math/tests] Error 2 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make: *** [check] Error 2 Unfortunately my logs are from a jhalfs build and provide no more detail than I provided in the other post, but I do believe these are the exact failures I had. The annex and math errors are already mentioned on the glibc page so I didn't really dig much farther. I'll see if I can hack jhalfs to keep my build directories and provide up to date information this week. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 16:31:12 Trent Shea wrote: but I do believe these are the exact failures I had. I was mistaken. The errors I had with the 6.4 build were: grep Error ./test-logs/068-glibc make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-cpuclock2.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [rt/tests] Error 2 make[1]: *** [check] Error 2 Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:31:07 Bruce Dubbs wrote: Trent Shea wrote: On Sunday 24 May 2009 16:31:12 Trent Shea wrote: I'll see if I can hack jhalfs to keep my build directories and provide up to date information this week. Thanks, Trent. I'm just running a jhalfs build right now. A bunch of errors: What version of the book did you use? Are you using gcc-4.4.0? I did not run into the make -k check aborting problem with GCC-4.3.2. I'm running the builds with Revision: 8920. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.10.1 make check fails
On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:31:07 Bruce Dubbs wrote: Trent Shea wrote: On Sunday 24 May 2009 16:31:12 Trent Shea wrote: I'll see if I can hack jhalfs to keep my build directories and provide up to date information this week. Thanks, Trent. I'm just running a jhalfs build right now. A bunch of errors: What version of the book did you use? Are you using gcc-4.4.0? I did not run into the make -k check aborting problem with GCC-4.3.2. I'm running the builds with Revision: 8920. Sorry, yes running it with 4.4.0. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Linux-2.6.29.1 API Headers
Hi, Along with the api headers there are ..install.cmd and .install files being copied to the built system. They are also present in an ubuntu system, but they just look like cruft. These files appeared some time after 2.6.24. Is there a chance that the cp command be altered, or does anyone see a use for these files? Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Linux-2.6.29.1 API Headers
On April 22, 2009 05:23:26 pm Trent Shea wrote: Along with the api headers there are ..install.cmd and .install files being copied to the built system. These files get created from scripts/Makefile.headersinst and appear to be log files. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Binutils - Chapter Six: libiberty header files, and Trac #1929
Hi, I'm looking at binutils in chapter six, and how we are copying libiberty.h to its final location. For the record, I've been working with binutils-2.19.1. The configure option --enable-install-libiberty should Install headers for end users, unfortunately, I can't get it to work (well, see below.) GCC also ships with libiberty and --enable-install-libiberty works as I'd expect (IE. header files get installed.) Previous discussion on this mailing list indicates that binutils has historically distributed a newer version, and that its version is the preferred choice. I list GCC as an example to show that there are other packages that distribute libiberty, and that they are configurable in such a way that the headers get installed. Perhaps it may be appropriate to report upstream that --enable-install-libiberty has no effect? After looking at libiberty I wonder which header files should be installed. The list of header files can be generated the following ways. With gcc: configure with --enable-install-libiberty With binutils: configure --with-target-subdir=anything --enable-install-libiberty The header files are as follows (installed in /usr/include/libiberty): ansidecl.h (gets duplicated) demangle.h dyn-string.h fibheap.h floatformat.h hashtab.h libiberty.h objalloc.h partition.h safe-ctype.h sort.h splay-tree.h My opinion is that all of the header files should be installed, as if the configure option worked. Unfortunately, I don't see an elegant way around the cp command. I'm still in the early stages of researching this, but I'd appreciate any input; mainly, whether or not installing all of the archive's header files should be considered. Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Binutils - Chapter Six: libiberty header files, and Trac #1929
On Monday 23 March 2009 16:36:47 Ken Moffat wrote: Libiberty came up when I was moaning about static libraries. Robert pointed out that the devs like to make changes without worrying about backwards compatability. http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2009-February/019325.html That's a good point. My concern is not so much removal of the archive, rather, whether or not we should install all of its header files. However, given your experiences, suppression may be a valid proposal. I quickly looked at a default debian and default ubuntu install, and neither include the headers or archive. The following thread mentions three packages that did depend on libiberty.a being installed. The packges are: ksymoops, oprofile and memprof. I'll take a look and see if this is still the case. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2003-August/036142.html Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Trac Ticket 2344: Tar Revert Pipe Drain Patch
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2344 Hi, The error reported is reproducible using tar-1.21. However, the book has moved on to 1.22, which behaves as expected, as did 1.20. The only relevant discussion I found on the tar mailing lists is here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2008-12/msg00028.html A few notes (using version 1.21): I was unable to reproduce the error with any other .tar.bz2 files; I tried a few. I also tried the following (which worked fine *shrug*): bunzip2 glibmm-2.18.1.tar.bz2 strace -o strace.output cat glibmm.tar | tar xof - Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
xorg-7.4 luit-1.0.3
I'm wondering if the book has this package separate from the other applications for a historical reason, or if there's a current technical reason. I've built luit before and after the fonts and my logs are identical. Also, the --with-localealias-file=... command has been removed from the configure command, but the explanation remains. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS 6.4 is released
On November 23, 2008 07:51:51 am Bruce Dubbs wrote: The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of LFS Version 6.4. This release includes numerous changes to LFS-6.3 (including update to Linux-2.6.27.4, GCC-4.3.2, Glibc-2.8) and security fixes. It also includes editorial work on the explanatory material throughout the book, improving both the clarity and accuracy of the text. Thank you everyone for a great release and for all of the help/feedback along the way. It's been a great experience watching this project evolve. All the time and effort that has gone into this release is appreciated! Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: hang in gettext tests
On November 18, 2008 05:13:51 pm Ken Moffat wrote: Maybe it's just my box, dunno. I'm currently in my third fresh build of chapter 6, and the problem is spreading: m4 tests hung on test_rwlock (it's part of gnulib, so probably in other packages) but on a second attempt they wizzed through like they normally do. Got to gettext, the first two attempts hung here, but the third is continuing. Not a showstopper, but annoying. On my system it looks like the gettext tests are taking around 2SBU longer than expected. M4 was still less than a minute. [gettext] Build time is: 9 minutes and 30 seconds Build time in seconds is: 570 Approximate SBU time is: 5.3 Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: development/chapter06/glibc
On November 17, 2008 09:47:39 am Lefteris Dimitroulakis wrote: mkdir: created directory `/usr/lib/locale' cannot open locale definition file `zh_CN.GB18030': No such file or directory make: *** [glibc] Error 4 rgrds Lefteris Hi, It looks like a typo, the command should probably be: localedef -i zh_CN -f GB18030 zh_CN.GB18030 I've posted a ticket as well #2279 Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Teminal issues in -dev
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 16:05:22 Bruce Dubbs wrote: Yes. `mknod -m666 /dev/tty c 5 0` makes everything work correctly. Should we add that to 6.2. Preparing Virtual Kernel File Systems ? mount -v --bind /dev $LFS/dev seems to populate everything for me. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Making the LFS System Bootable
On Sunday 12 October 2008 14:55:16 Randy McMurchy wrote: And if the book says to create this file *after* running the following commands, don't you find *that* weird? Haha, a little, but I could see merit ;) Hmm... I get the same output with or without the menu.list in place. It looks like the location /boot/grub/menu.lst is just a default. For instance: cp /boot/grub/*stage* ~/ grub root (hd0,12) Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0x83 grub setup --prefix=/root (hd0) Checking if /root/stage1 exists... yes Checking if /root/stage2 exists... yes Checking if /root/e2fs_stage1_5 exists... yes Running embed /root/e2fs_stage1_5 (hd0)... 15 sectors are embedded. succeeded Running install /root/stage1 (hd0) (hd0)1+15 p (hd0,12)/root/stage2 /root/men u.lst... succeeded Done. Quote from info (Sorry, I'm not that familiar with info. I got to this page from the Index and install. If the options `p' or CONFIG_FILE are present, then it reads the first block of stage2, modifies it with the values of the partition STAGE2_FILE was found on (for `p') or places the string CONFIG_FILE into the area telling the stage2 where to look for a configuration file at boot time. End Quote It goes on, but according to the steps taken in the book I'm not sure that anything is modified by the menu.list being in place. I have also run setup with and without the menu.lst in place and run the following to try and confirm this: bash-3.2# dd if=/dev/sda of=/root/mbr1 bs=512 count=1 bash-3.2# dd if=/dev/sda of=/root/mbr2 bs=512 count=1 bash-3.2# diff -s mbr mbr2 Files mbr and mbr2 are identical bash-3.2# Anyhow, I'm pretty convinced and I like how the page looks. One more point: If you have managed to install grub and then crash, you're not technically unable to boot, as you will end up in the grub shell and should be able to muddle your way through it ;). Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Confused about some E2fsprogs notes
On Sunday 05 October 2008 16:43:32 Bruce Dubbs wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/build sudo /sbin/debugfs -R feature /dev/sda3 debugfs 1.41.1 (01-Sep-2008) Filesystem features: has_journal filetype needs_recovery sparse_super large_file it shows only a subset of the features the book says. I don't really know how to determine what to do at this point. I show many less features than the book does. What should I do to ensure the feature list is correct? I'm pretty sure this only lists the actual feature set of the partition, not the list of all possible options. See sudo /sbin/dumpe2fs /dev/sda3 | grep features I've run both commands on a file system and had the same results appear, so I dug around a bit, and it looks like this was discussed a bit back in the day: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2006-July/057711.html Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Why can't I create tickets still?
On Sunday 05 October 2008 12:17:35 William Immendorf wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote: That was an oversight. You can now. Who are you talking to, DJ or me? I still can't create tickets. This _has_ been mentioned before, but I'm including a link to the archives in the hope that you will _look_ and consider learning to use mailing lists effectively. It _will_ help to clear up such questions as who are you talking to ;). list archives: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2008-October/thread.html Additional information. faq: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ With special attention to: Do not click reply unless you're actually replying to a post. Use new, or compose, or whatever your mail client calls it, to ask a new question or start a new thread. Reply sets more than just the subject line and will cause your post to appear in the wrong place unless you're actually answering. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
6.2 rc-2 /lib/udev/rule_generator
/lib/udev/rule_generator.functions has PATH='/sbin:/bin' and expects to find 'rmdir' and 'sleep' there. Should we provide links when installing coreutils and util-linux, or sed the path before installing udev? The problem that's caused by this is: you can't delete your 70-persistent-net.rules, and rerun /lib/udev/write_net_rules all_interfaces (in 7.13.1. Creating stable names for network interfaces), which may be a pain if you add a network card later. Test case: Follow the book upto and including 7.13.1. Creating stable names for network interfaces. then, cd /etc/udev/rules.d rm 70-persistent-net.rules /lib/udev/write_net_rules all_interfaces edit /lib/udev/rule_generator.functions (append :/usr/bin to PATH) rm -fdr /dev/.udev/.lock-70-persistent-net.rules /lib/udev/write_net_rules all_interfaces (sed message still appears but I have to shrug at that for now) /lib/udev/write_net_rules all_interfaces rm 70-persistent-net.rules /lib/udev/write_net_rules all_interfaces I also noticed /dev/.udev/.lock-70-persistent-cd.rules, which may cause similar trouble. Anyhow, I edited udev-113/extras/rule_generator/rule_generator.functions to include :/usr/bin before installing udev, reinstalled, and went through chapter 7 again. It seems this corrects the non-deletion of both lock files. Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.2 rc-2 /lib/udev/rule_generator
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 13:45, Dan Nicholson wrote: We move rmdir and sleep to /bin at the end of the coreutils install, so this shouldn't be an issue. Opps, thanks. My script ruined that move... Moved mv and then couldn't move the rest; gotta love it... Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Inconsistent use of in BOOK
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 07:56, Dan Nicholson wrote:
...
and
noticed some in chained commands. It seems that usual way in LFS is
not to do this.
Curious; is this just a style preference?
I notice in Chapter 5 Adjusting the Toolchain:
-
GCC_INCLUDEDIR=`dirname $(gcc -print-libgcc-file-name)`/include
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/* -maxdepth 0 -xtype d -exec rm -rvf '{}' \;
rm -vf `grep -l DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/*`
unset GCC_INCLUDEDIR
-
And it could be replaced a bunch of ways:
1.
-
( GCC_INCLUDEDIR=`dirname $(gcc -print-libgcc-file-name)`/include
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/* -maxdepth 0 -xtype d -exec rm -rvf '{}' \;
rm -vf `grep -l DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/*`; )
-
This one would ensure that GCC_INCLUDE is unset in the event of a failure,
probably not a big deal.
Or, if a subshell is to be avoided:
2.
-
GCC_INCLUDEDIR=`dirname $(gcc -print-libgcc-file-name)`/include
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/* -maxdepth 0 -xtype d -exec rm -rvf '{}' \;
rm -vf `grep -l DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/*`
unset GCC_INCLUDEDIR ||
unset GCC_INCLUDE
-
3.
-
Or, maybe just strip the ''s right out of there; I'm not sure how other
browsers and consoles work, but with my combo a cut and paste without the
works just fine I just have to hit enter for the last command; this also
keeps the screen output tied to the commands.
4.
-
And finally, if there is no intention to use the '' as a control character
replace it with ';' and the unset will be fine.
Personally, I like the first one best. In the even that GCC_INCLUDEDIR fails
to set the following command won't go around trying to delete all directories
off the root. I played; I did; luckily I was quick with the crtl-c and not
root and only ended up deleting part of an old home directory... Now I have a
user for playing with these things ;).
Trent.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.3-rc2 has been generated
On Sunday 12 August 2007 23:57, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Are there any last minute updates I need to make before sending the -rc2 release announcement? The changelog mentions the linux upgrade as 2.6.22.1 not 2.6.22.2. Also, the shadow package links have never worked for me (two or three weeks of random checks); Is it possible to replace the link? I'm not sure what the protocol is on linking to another project's site, but I can provide a working link if requested. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
