[lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
Hello I'm stuck at a point and I really don't know what's wrong. Here is my situation. Gathered from the list of All Packages list page 3.2, it states Autoconf (2.68) and M4 (1.4.16) So I downloaded, extracted, M4 (1.4.16) and did the following while in the directory "$LFS/sources/m4-1.4.16": ./configure(as user lfs) make (as user lfs) sudo make install (as root) Everything seemed to go ok. However, when I attempt to run ./configure on Autoconf (2.68) I receive the following error: “ checking for expr... /usr/bin/expr checking for GNU M4 that supports accurate traces... configure: error: no acceptable m4 could be found in $PATH. GNU M4 1.4.6 or later is required; 1.4.14 is recommended “ OK, so I removed M4 (1.4.16) and did the same thing to M4 (1.4.9) , thinking "1.4.9 is > 1.4.6, so that should work" Going back to autoconf, when I issue ./configure in $LFS/sources/autoconf-2.68, the same problem returns. Also, I noticed this when I issue "m4 --version" as user lfs: “ Command 'm4' is available in '/usr/local/bin/m4' The command could not be located because '/usr/local/bin' is not included in the PATH environment variable. m4: command not found “ question: should /usr/local/bin be in my path variable for user lfs? currently $PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin. question: should i be ./configure,make,make install all as root? any help is greatly appreciated as i am pretty lost here after spending hours at this. best regards and thanks for your time, dave -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
On Jan 17, 2012 8:43 AM, "Dave H" wrote:
>
> So I downloaded, extracted, M4 (1.4.16) and did the following while in
the directory "$LFS/sources/m4-1.4.16":
You might find it easier to use the host system's package manager to
install the required packages
>
> question: should /usr/local/bin be in my path variable for user lfs?
currently $PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin.
That would probably work,
you should have it after tools.. And before /bin.. if it were on the end
and you have an older version in /{usr/}bin you will still be using the
older version
> question: should i be ./configure,make,make install all as root?
No, never
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Tools directory is empty
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 12:29:40 am Firerat wrote: > On Jan 17, 2012 5:21 AM, "Uthayanan" wrote: > > lfsuthayan@ubuntu:/$ ls -l /tools > > total 48 > > drwxr-xr-x 2 lfsuthayan lfs 12288 Jan 16 11:22 bin > > drwxr-xr-x 2 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 04:18 etc > > drwxr-xr-x 4 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 10 09:26 i686-lfs-linux-gnu > > drwxr-xr-x 4 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 05:00 i686-pc-linux-gnu > > drwxr-xr-x 32 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 11:20 include > > drwxr-xr-x 10 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 11:22 lib > > drwxr-xr-x 6 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 11:06 libexec > > drwxr-xr-x 2 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 11:22 sbin > > drwxr-xr-x 13 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 11:23 share > > drwxr-xr-x 2 lfsuthayan lfs 4096 Jan 16 09:21 var > > lfsuthayan@ubuntu:/$ > > > >> put I got > > /tools is not a link > > Confirm with > > ls -l / > > to fix > > mv /tools/* /mnt/lfs/tools/ > rmdir /tools > ln -s /mnt/lfs/tools /tools > > Tbh I'm a little confused how you managed to do that, as you would need to > be root If you are using a package manager it is easy to overwrite the symlink with a directory /tools. I have had this happend many times. In fact it is something I am very good at. ;) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:42:35 -0500 Dave H wrote: > Hello I'm stuck at a point and I really don't know what's wrong. Here is > my situation. > > Gathered from the list of All Packages list page 3.2, it states Autoconf > (2.68) and M4 (1.4.16) > > So I downloaded, extracted, M4 (1.4.16) and did the following while in the > directory "$LFS/sources/m4-1.4.16": > > ./configure(as user lfs) > make (as user lfs) > sudo make install (as root) This is very wrong. In chapter 5 run make install as user lfs. If you do it as root you run the risk of destroying your host system. Also, root does not have the same environment variables set as the user lfs so the commands will not be executed in the same way if they are run by root. > question: should /usr/local/bin be in my path variable for user lfs? No > currently $PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin. > question: should i be ./configure,make,make install all as root? No. Do all of chapter 5 as the user lfs. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
On Jan 17, 2012 1:30 PM, "Andrew Benton" wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:42:35 -0500 > Dave H wrote: > > > Hello I'm stuck at a point and I really don't know what's wrong. Here is > > my situation. > > > > Gathered from the list of All Packages list page 3.2, it states Autoconf > > (2.68) and M4 (1.4.16) > > > > So I downloaded, extracted, M4 (1.4.16) and did the following while in the > > directory "$LFS/sources/m4-1.4.16": > > > > ./configure(as user lfs) > > make (as user lfs) > > sudo make install (as root) > > This is very wrong. In chapter 5 run make install as user lfs. If you > do it as root you run the risk of destroying your host system. Also, > root does not have the same environment variables set as the user lfs > so the commands will not be executed in the same way if they are run by > root. > Wrong! They were installing the required version of M4 to the host > > question: should /usr/local/bin be in my path variable for user lfs? > > No > Wrong, if the build requires things installed in /usr/local then it needs to be in the path > > currently $PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin. > > question: should i be ./configure,make,make install all as root? > > No. Do all of chapter 5 as the user lfs. > That is correct well apart from changing ownership which must be done as root -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:38:37PM +, Firerat wrote: > On Jan 17, 2012 1:30 PM, "Andrew Benton" wrote: > > > Wrong! > They were installing the required version of M4 to the host > > > > question: should /usr/local/bin be in my path variable for user lfs? > > > > No > > > Wrong, if the build requires things installed in /usr/local then it needs > to be in the path > > > currently $PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin. > > > question: should i be ./configure,make,make install all as root? > > It's a long time since I've seen anyone mention that they compiled programs to make the host fit for purpose - usually they just use the package manager. But yes, if a required package is in /usr/local then the PATH should be /tools/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin In these circumstances, for chapter 5 it might also help to export PKGCONFIG_PATH as /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usrlocal/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/share/pkgconfig (Try without this, to see if putting the new m4 ahead of the old one is sufficient. If it isn't try this) ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:38:37PM +, Firerat wrote: >> On Jan 17, 2012 1:30 PM, "Andrew Benton" wrote: >> > >> Wrong! >> They were installing the required version of M4 to the host >> >> > > question: should /usr/local/bin be in my path variable for user lfs? >> > >> > No >> > >> Wrong, if the build requires things installed in /usr/local then it needs >> to be in the path >> > > currently $PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin. >> > > question: should i be ./configure,make,make install all as root? >> > > > It's a long time since I've seen anyone mention that they compiled > programs to make the host fit for purpose - usually they just use > the package manager. But yes, if a required package is in > /usr/local then the PATH should be > /tools/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin > > In these circumstances, for chapter 5 it might also help to export > PKGCONFIG_PATH as > /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usrlocal/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/share/pkgconfig > (Try without this, to see if putting the new m4 ahead of the old one > is sufficient. If it isn't try this) > > ĸen You're missing a '/' in PKGCONFIG_PATH, the correct one would be: /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/local/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/share/pkgconfig Matijn -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure, make and make install as who
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:24:39PM +0100, Matijn Woudt wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > In these circumstances, for chapter 5 it might also help to export > > PKGCONFIG_PATH as > > /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usrlocal/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/share/pkgconfig > > (Try without this, to see if putting the new m4 ahead of the old one > > is sufficient. If it isn't try this) > > > > ĸen > > You're missing a '/' in PKGCONFIG_PATH, the correct one would be: > /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/local/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/share/pkgconfig > > Matijn Yes. Thanks. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] 6.17. GCC-4.6.1 grep -B4 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log differs from the book
Hi All, I am working on chapter 6, building gcc. After grep -B4 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log I get different results as is shown on the book page. Expected results as in the example are: #include <...> search starts here: /usr/local/include /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include-fixed /usr/include However I get #include <...> search starts here: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.6/include /usr/local/include /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.6/include-fixed /usr/include I understand the difference in architecture, but the first two paths are swapped in sequence. Is this bad, and so yes, where could I have gone wrong, so I can correct it? Thanks in advance, Ronnie. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 6.17. GCC-4.6.1 grep -B4 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log differs from the book
>Hi All, > >I am working on chapter 6, building gcc. After grep -B4 '^ >/usr/include' dummy.log I get different results as is shown on the >book page. Expected results as in the example are: > >#include <...> search starts here: > /usr/local/include > /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include > /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include-fixed > /usr/include > >However I get > >#include <...> search starts here: > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.6/include > /usr/local/include > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.6/include-fixed > /usr/include > >I understand the difference in architecture, but the first two paths >are swapped in sequence. Is this bad, and so yes, where could I have >gone wrong, so I can correct it? > >Thanks in advance, Ronnie. >-- Mine did that too and works fine. --Jason -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Is it OK to only load dejaGnu and FreeFonts for Xorg Server?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:18:05AM -0700, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote: > I'm curious if it is a bad deviation from the recommended installable > fonts to only install DejaGnu Fonts and FreeFonts. > > I don't really have a need for Chinese, Korean or Japanese fonts really > nor do I like Microsoft's mandates on how you can and can't use their > fonts. > > If there are applications that will be thwarted without them, I'll grab > them. > If you folks think I should grab them anyway - I will also. > > What do you think? > > --Jason dejavu, not dejagnu :) Supposedly, (a few years ago now) bitstream-vera had better hinting than dejavu, so I build both. No idea if the hinting still differs. If you don't wish to read other writing-systems, and are happy to see inverse-question-marks in place of those glyphs, you should be ok. +1 for avoiding MS font restrictions. If you ever find that some glyphs look "undernourished", they're coming from freefont. If this ever happens a lot, and you aren't reading a *very* uncommon language, you might wish to try other fonts : I think I first used Charis-SIL because it supports phonetic symbols (common in reading about languages in wikipedia!). Cantarell-fonts (which will be added to the fonts page when I put gnome-3 in the book) are good for tiny sizes, and seem to have good coverage. Ubuntu-fonts seem to provide good coverage too (noticeable in abiword, which is still unable to use fontconfig to get a glyph from another font). Meanwhile, for the moment go ahead with only those two - it's easy enough to add others later when you find a reason to try them. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-support] XWindows - SO Close - But No xtrans?
Hello All, I'm compiling xorgserver and I get this error: Requested 'xtrans > 1.2.2' but version of XTrans is 1.2 Now, I know I installed xtrans 1.2.5 as part of the libs section. It compiles and installs fine also. My XWindows PREFIX = /usr The error also mentions PKG_CONFIG_PATH for non-standard prefixes but I think /usr is standard, isn't it? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You Jason -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 6.17. GCC-4.6.1 grep -B4 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log differs from the book
F -Original Message- From: Ronnie van Aarle Sender: lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:15:27 To: Reply-To: LFS Support List Subject: [lfs-support] 6.17. GCC-4.6.1 grep -B4 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log differs from the book Hi All, I am working on chapter 6, building gcc. After grep -B4 '^ /usr/include' dummy.log I get different results as is shown on the book page. Expected results as in the example are: #include <...> search starts here: /usr/local/include /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include-fixed /usr/include However I get #include <...> search starts here: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.6/include /usr/local/include /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.1.6/include-fixed /usr/include I understand the difference in architecture, but the first two paths are swapped in sequence. Is this bad, and so yes, where could I have gone wrong, so I can correct it? Thanks in advance, Ronnie. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
