Re: [lfs-support] LFS 9.1-systemd 5.33 Texinfo
On July 12, 2020 at 1:32 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 05:36:09PM -, Hans Malissa wrote: I'm working my way through LFS 9.1-systemd, and I'm stuck in chapter 5.33 Texinfo (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter05/texinfo.html): $ ./configure --prefix=/tools checking for a BSD-compatible install... /tools/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /tools/bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking whether make supports nested variables... yes checking whether UID '1000' is supported by ustar format... yes checking whether GID '1000' is supported by ustar format... yes checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar checking for perl... /tools/bin/perl checking Perl version and modules... no configure: error: perl >= 5.7.3 with Encode and Data::Dumper required by Texinfo. Something seems to be wrong with my Perl installation. I've been following the instructions in 5.29 (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter05/perl.html) exactly, with the only exception that I used Perl-5.30.3 as described in the Errata page (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/stable-systemd/). Not sure what is wrong here. I've built LFS many times before, but I've never seen this particular error. Thanks a lot, Hans Hi Hans, some general suggestions to help you debug the problem: $/tools/bin/perl --version That checks if perl is installed and runnable. If it is not, maybe $ldd /tools/bin/perl If perl is working, in /tools/lib/perl5/5.30.3/ you should see Encode.pm and and Encode/directory with various modules, and similarly /tools/lib/perl5/5.30.3/Data/Dumper.pm If those are present you will need to look at config.log and see what it tested for (a few lines above 'checking Perl version and modules'. That explains everything. It turns out that the modules were installed in /tools/lib/perl5/5.30.1 and not in /tools/lib/perl5/5.30.3. Looks like I followed the instructions in 5.33 a little too literally. I renamed /tools/lib/perl5/5.30.1 to /tools/lib/perl5/5.30.3 and now texinfo builds fine. Thanks a lot! Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] LFS 9.1-systemd 5.33 Texinfo
I'm working my way through LFS 9.1-systemd, and I'm stuck in chapter 5.33 Texinfo (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter05/texinfo.html): $ ./configure --prefix=/tools checking for a BSD-compatible install... /tools/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /tools/bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking whether make supports nested variables... yes checking whether UID '1000' is supported by ustar format... yes checking whether GID '1000' is supported by ustar format... yes checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar checking for perl... /tools/bin/perl checking Perl version and modules... no configure: error: perl >= 5.7.3 with Encode and Data::Dumper required by Texinfo. Something seems to be wrong with my Perl installation. I've been following the instructions in 5.29 (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter05/perl.html) exactly, with the only exception that I used Perl-5.30.3 as described in the Errata page (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/stable-systemd/). Not sure what is wrong here. I've built LFS many times before, but I've never seen this particular error. Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 9.1-systemd Errata
Hi all, I noticed that the links on the 9.1-systemd Errata page (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/stable-systemd/) are not working. The page talks about 'upgrading' the packages; does this mean that (a) we should first build LFS as described in the book, and upgrade the packages in question afterwards, or (b) we should build the newer versions of the packages in question while building LFS? Would this apply to chapter 5 and 6 or only chapter 6? Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] gcc-8.2.0 (8.3-systemd chapter 6.21 on x86_64)
On Oct 23, 2018, at 07:19 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:08:34PM -0600, Hans Malissa wrote: On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: As always with testsuites, the detail can happen a lot earlier. My run of make check on that machine was logged, and the first 12 lines, up to the point where it started to compile test progs, were: make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'. true DO=all multi-do # make make btest stest ztest edtest ttest ctestg ctesta make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'. make[2]: Entering directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def make[2]: autogen: Command not found make[2]: *** [Makefile:176: check] Error 127 make[2]: Leaving directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' make[1]: *** [Makefile:3674: check-fixincludes] Error 2 make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'. make[3]: Entering directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/libbacktrace' The Error 127 (no such file) translates becomes Error 2 in the check-fixincludes target, and that (plus any other errors, if there were any - not in your case) carries through to the final status. ĸen Okay, I redirected the output of make -k check to a file, and I do indeed get something similar, the same ‘Error 127’, right in the beginning: make[1]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build' make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def make[2]: autogen: Command not found make[2]: *** [Makefile:176: check] Error 127 make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' make[1]: *** [Makefile:3674: check-fixincludes] Error 2 So that seems to be comparable to what you got. Does that mean that I can go ahead and install gcc-8.2.0 or is something wrong? Yes, install it, nothing is wrong. For more on autogen, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29700 http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/autogen There is no way that can be built at this early stage (it appears to need libguile, libxml2, libregex). ĸen Great, thanks for the explanation. This sounds to me as if everyone should get the same error, since nobody would have autogen at this stage. Hans -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] gcc-8.2.0 (8.3-systemd chapter 6.21 on x86_64)
On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:33:35PM +0000, Hans Malissa wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Once again, I'm confused by the output from a test suite, in this case it's >> gcc-8.2.0 in chapter 6.21 of 8.3-systemd on x86_64. >> When I run the tests as described in the book, su nobody -s /bin/bash -c >> "PATH=$PATH make -k check" exits with: >> >> [...] >> # of expected passes 54 >> make[4]: Leaving directory >> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite' >> make[3]: Leaving directory >> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite' >> make[3]: Entering directory >> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic' >> true DO=all multi-do # make >> make[3]: Leaving directory >> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic' >> make[2]: Leaving directory >> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic' >> make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build' >> make: *** [Makefile:2235: do-check] Error 2 >> make: Target 'check' not remade because of errors. >> >> But when I run ../contrib/test_summary I don't see any 'unexpected >> failures'. I don't see any failures at all, and no errors either. So I'm not >> quite sure which error make -k check is referring to. What went wrong here? >> I'm pasting the output of ../contrib/test_summary below. >> Thanks a lot, >> >> Hans >> > (snipped test_summary, it is similar to what I got on an i3 skylake > although I had different totals for expected passes and unsupported > tests in both g++ and libstdc++.) > > As always with testsuites, the detail can happen a lot earlier. My > run of make check on that machine was logged, and the first 12 > lines, up to the point where it started to compile test progs, were: > > make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'. > true DO=all multi-do # make > make btest stest ztest edtest ttest ctestg ctesta > make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'. > make[2]: Entering directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' > autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def > make[2]: autogen: Command not found > make[2]: *** [Makefile:176: check] Error 127 > make[2]: Leaving directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' > make[1]: *** [Makefile:3674: check-fixincludes] Error 2 > make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'. > make[3]: Entering directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/libbacktrace' > > The Error 127 (no such file) translates becomes Error 2 in the > check-fixincludes target, and that (plus any other errors, if there > were any - not in your case) carries through to the final status. > > ĸen Okay, I redirected the output of make -k check to a file, and I do indeed get something similar, the same ‘Error 127’, right in the beginning: make[1]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build' make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def make[2]: autogen: Command not found make[2]: *** [Makefile:176: check] Error 127 make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes' make[1]: *** [Makefile:3674: check-fixincludes] Error 2 make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/gcc' Making a new config file... […] So that seems to be comparable to what you got. Does that mean that I can go ahead and install gcc-8.2.0 or is something wrong? Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] gcc-8.2.0 (8.3-systemd chapter 6.21 on x86_64)
Hi all, Once again, I'm confused by the output from a test suite, in this case it's gcc-8.2.0 in chapter 6.21 of 8.3-systemd on x86_64. When I run the tests as described in the book, su nobody -s /bin/bash -c "PATH=$PATH make -k check" exits with: [...] # of expected passes 54 make[4]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite' make[3]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite' make[3]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic' true DO=all multi-do # make make[3]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic' make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic' make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build' make: *** [Makefile:2235: do-check] Error 2 make: Target 'check' not remade because of errors. But when I run ../contrib/test_summary I don't see any 'unexpected failures'. I don't see any failures at all, and no errors either. So I'm not quite sure which error make -k check is referring to. What went wrong here? I'm pasting the output of ../contrib/test_summary below. Thanks a lot, Hans # ../contrib/test_summary cat <<'EOF' | LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_8_2_0_release revision 262993 Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 125327 # of expected failures 504 # of unsupported tests 4931 /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/gcc/xg++ version 8.2.0 (GCC) === gcc tests === Running target unix === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 130917 # of expected failures 393 # of unsupported tests 2107 /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/gcc/xgcc version 8.2.0 (GCC) === libatomic tests === Running target unix === libatomic Summary === # of expected passes 54 === libgomp tests === Running target unix === libgomp Summary === # of expected passes 1837 # of unsupported tests 192 === libitm tests === Running target unix === libitm Summary === # of expected passes 42 # of expected failures 3 # of unsupported tests 1 === libstdc++ tests === Running target unix === libstdc++ Summary === # of expected passes 12199 # of expected failures 71 # of unsupported tests 306 Compiler version: 8.2.0 (GCC) Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu configure flags: --prefix=/usr --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --disable-libmpx --with-system-zlib EOF Mail -s "Results for 8.2.0 (GCC) testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.sum /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.sum.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.log /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.log.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.log /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.log.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.log /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.log.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.log /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.log.sent && mv /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log /usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/./x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log.sent && true -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Glibc-2.28 tests
On Oct 22, 2018, at 01:59 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: On 10/22/2018 01:08 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 05:27:59PM +, Hans Malissa wrote: So are these tests documented in detail somewhere? The glibc website doesn't give explanation of the individual test cases as far as I can see. Thanks a lot, Hans They were probably discussed (at a guess, on the libc-alpha list) before being committed. Those are the type of google matches I was referring to. But in general, I am not aware of any documentation explaining what a test if doing. That is true for most projects, not just glibc. Often, the test script may explain what it is doing - but for us mere mortals the details will usually be hard to understand because we lack context, e.g. about how the test actually runs. Some are fairly simple, others either delete their output before the tests have finished, or require specific knowledge to understand what they are doing. Let me add that we build gcc in a partial environment. There are a lot of factors that can cause a test failure including kernel configuration, support libraries, etc. In some cases we've seen test failures because a library is too new for the assumptions made in the test. -- Bruce Thanks for the responses, this is really helpful. The book makes it quite clear that the test suites are critically important, at least for some packages. But from this discussion it seems as if things may be okay even with "a few" failed tests. And I guess there's a fine line between "just a few failed tests" and "a failed package build". Thanks everyone for your help! Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Glibc-2.28 tests
On Oct 22, 2018, at 09:18 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:44:23PM +, Hans Malissa wrote: Hi, I'm getting unexpected test failures in glibc (8.3-systemd, chapter 6.9). make check exits with: ... Summary of test results: 3 FAIL 5823 PASS 31 UNSUPPORTED 17 XFAIL 2 XPASS make[1]: *** [Makefile:347: tests] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/glibc-2.28' make: *** [Makefile:9: check] Error 2 The 3 FAILs are: FAIL: inet/tst-idna_name_classify FAIL: libio/tst-readline FAIL: misc/tst-ttyname The 2 XPASSes are: XPASS: elf/tst-protected1a XPASS: elf/tst-protected1b inet/tst-idna_name_classify and misc/tst-ttyname are mentioned in the book, but not inet/tst-idna_name_classify. Is it safe to continue at this point? With one extra failure, yes. We don't usually note or care about XPASS, only what actually fails. Having one or two more here is no big deal. But there is no hard and fast rule - having 20 more is bad, having 6 more - maybe, maybe not. FWIW, I only got 1 on the machine I looked at, because one other was 'unsupported' so to an extent the results vary, probably with micro-architecture and kernel configuration. Thanks. I will continue with my build as usual. I've backed up $LFS/tools anyway in chapter 5.36, so if everything goes wrong I could just go back to this point. Also, what is the best strategy to find out more about a specific error? Google searches mainly lead to archives of test results, but not to an explanation. Thanks a lot, Hans Necromancy ? Sometimes an explanation will be hinted at after reading several results across the first few pages. But other times, nothing - and to an extent it will depend on what google knows about your search history, but more, these days, to what other people are commonly searching for. ĸen -- Is it about a bicycle ? -- So are these tests documented in detail somewhere? The glibc website doesn't give explanation of the individual test cases as far as I can see. Thanks a lot, Hans -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] Glibc-2.28 tests
Hi, I'm getting unexpected test failures in glibc (8.3-systemd, chapter 6.9). make check exits with: ... Summary of test results: 3 FAIL 5823 PASS 31 UNSUPPORTED 17 XFAIL 2 XPASS make[1]: *** [Makefile:347: tests] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/glibc-2.28' make: *** [Makefile:9: check] Error 2 The 3 FAILs are: FAIL: inet/tst-idna_name_classify FAIL: libio/tst-readline FAIL: misc/tst-ttyname The 2 XPASSes are: XPASS: elf/tst-protected1a XPASS: elf/tst-protected1b inet/tst-idna_name_classify and misc/tst-ttyname are mentioned in the book, but not inet/tst-idna_name_classify. Is it safe to continue at this point? Also, what is the best strategy to find out more about a specific error? Google searches mainly lead to archives of test results, but not to an explanation. Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 8.2-systemd, chapter 6.20: making sense of the gcc test results
I'm in the process of building LFS 8.2-systemd on x86_64, and so far I've followed the instructions up to chapter 6.20 without problems. In chapter 6.20, when running the gcc test suite, I'm getting 6 FAILs in the libstdc++ tests: FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/exists.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/is_empty.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/remove.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/operations/temp_directory_path.cc execution test I've noticed that the very same FAILs are listed on http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/8.2/i7-5820K/test-logs/086-gcc-7.3.0 but I couldn't figure out whether that means that this is a problem or not, and what needs to be done about it. Is it safe to proceed with the installation at this point? Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] 8.1-systemd: Ch. 7.6 and 7.7: configuring linux console and system locale
On Oct 03, 2017, at 10:29 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: On 10/03/2017 10:08 PM, Hans Malissa wrote: I'm a little confused about chapters 7.6 and 7.7: the configuration of the linux console and the system locale: there are some examples given for other languages, but what would the "default" setting for /etc/vconsole.conf and /etc/locale.conf for standard English (US) be, with a standard keyboard be? Thanks a lot, Hans English (anything) is hardly standard. :-) /etc/vconsole.conf: From the book... KEYMAP This variable specifies the key mapping table for the keyboard. If unset, it defaults to us. All of the variables are optional. Unless you need/want a different console font or need international keys, don't create the file. The lower-case "us" is not a typo, and is what would appear in the file if it weren't the default. /etc/locale.conf: Read a bit further. An example is given on the page for US English. If you don't already know that you need @ or additional LC* settings, you do not need @ or additional LC* settings. The note "UTF-8 based locales are not supported well by many programs..." should probably be rewritten to include the text "A few programs still have difficulty with UTF-8 locales..." but we really should be *encouraging* UTF-8 locales in the book. HTH --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Thanks for the explanation, that helps a lot. I have now put 'LANG=en_US.UTF-8' into my /etc/locale.def. What is not yet clear to me: there is the locale definition (1) in /etc/locale.def, (2) via localectl [as described in 8.1-systemd 7.7] and (3) in the Bash startup files [as mentioned briefly in 8.1-systemd 7.7 and in BLFS-8.1-systemd chapter 3 'The Bash Shell Startup Files'. Are those three redundant and doing the same thing? Is localectl changing /etc/locale.def? Why is it necessary to define the locale separately in /etc/profile.d/i18n.sh again? Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 8.1-systemd: Ch. 7.6 and 7.7: configuring linux console and system locale
I'm a little confused about chapters 7.6 and 7.7: the configuration of the linux console and the system locale: there are some examples given for other languages, but what would the "default" setting for /etc/vconsole.conf and /etc/locale.conf for standard English (US) be, with a standard keyboard be? Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] 8.1-systemd Ch. 6.9 glibc-2.26: failed tests
On Sep 25, 2017, at 06:57 AM, Kuba wrote:On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:59:02AM +, Hans Malissa wrote:Hi,I'm getting 6 test failures in the test suit for glibc-2.26 (chapter 6.9 in 8.1-systemd):FAIL: dirent/tst-fdopendirFAIL: libio/tst-atimeFAIL: nptl/tst-thread-affinity-pthread2FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo4FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo5FAIL: rt/tst-mqueue5The book mentions that nptl/tst-thread-affinity-pthread2, posix/tst-getaddrinfo4, and posix/tst-getaddrinfo5 may fail.But dirent/tst-fdopendir, libio/tst-atime, and rt/tst-mqueue5 are not mentioned. What about these 3 failures? Is it safe to continue?Thanks a lot,HansI don't know what dirent/tst-fdopendir and rt/tst-mqueue5 are, but I'dexpect libio/tst-atime to fail when the filesystem is mounted with thenoatime option, which is pretty commonly used for performance reasons.I recall having a similar set of failures when I first built LFS. Icontinued and I haven't encountered any problems. Remember that thetest suites are intended to be used by developers to check forunintented side effects of code changes. I'm pretty sure it's safe tocontinue.Best of luck,KubaThanks a lot for your advice. I mounted /mnt/lfs with the atime option. To be on the safe side, I also ran the build and the tests with the -j1 option. Now the test results have changed, I'm getting only 4 failures:FAIL: nptl/tst-thread-affinity-pthread2FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo4FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo5FAIL: resolv/tst-resolv-res_initThe only one that's not mentioned in the book is resolv/tst-resolv-res_init. Also, that one did pass when I tried it the first time around (see above). Strange. I will follow your advice and continue.Thanks for your help,Hans signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 8.1-systemd Ch. 6.9 glibc-2.26: failed tests
Hi, I'm getting 6 test failures in the test suit for glibc-2.26 (chapter 6.9 in 8.1-systemd): FAIL: dirent/tst-fdopendir FAIL: libio/tst-atime FAIL: nptl/tst-thread-affinity-pthread2 FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo4 FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo5 FAIL: rt/tst-mqueue5 The book mentions that nptl/tst-thread-affinity-pthread2, posix/tst-getaddrinfo4, and posix/tst-getaddrinfo5 may fail. But dirent/tst-fdopendir, libio/tst-atime, and rt/tst-mqueue5 are not mentioned. What about these 3 failures? Is it safe to continue? Thanks a lot, Hans-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] 8.1-systemd Ch. 8.3 Linux-4.12.7: Error during make?
Hi, ‘make defconfig’ did a very good job, thanks for the advice. My idea of using .config of the host distribution was completely wrong. LFS is up and running now, and booting is much faster than with my host distribution. I still wonder where the error message came from - I was assuming that the kernel should compile in either case after using the standard configuration tools. Regarding the (working) configuration that is a result of ‘make defconfig’ and customization with ‘make menuconfig’, I have two questions: - How do I know if one or more modules/configuration settings are missing (even though the kernel runs)? - How can I tell whether there are extra modules or options turned on that are not really used in my system? Thanks a lot, Hans > On Sep 19, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > Hans Malissa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I’m working my way through LFS 8.1-systemd. I got all the way to 8.3.1 >> Linux-4.12.7 without any problem, but now I’m stuck during kernel >> compilation. >> After 'make mrproper’ and ‘make menuconfig', I run ‘make'. Compilation runs >> ok for quite some time, but eventually it fails with a message: >> >> ... >> Setup is 17532 bytes (padded to 17920 bytes). >> System is 5281 kB >> CRC ed1061fd >> Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#1) >> Building modules, stage 2. >> MODPOST 3534 modules >> ERROR: “__devm_regmap_init_mmio_clk” >> [sound/soc/codecs/snd-soc-msm8916-digital.ko] undefined! >> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.modpost:91: __modpost] Error 1 >> make: *** [Makefile:1217: modules] Error 2 >> >> I’ve tried a few times, starting from a clean source every time. I don’t >> understand what’s going wrong here. I was assuming that the .config created >> with ‘make menuconfig’ should work in any case? >> I initially created .config by copying the config-file from the host >> distribution (debian), running ‘make oldconfig’, and then adjusting the >> .config to my liking, so it should work on my system. Most likely there are >> lots and lots of modules selected that I don’t really need. This should not >> be a problem, but if it’s some obscure module that I don’t need which causes >> the compile error, then I’d gladly remove it. >> Thanks a lot, > > Try running 'make defconfig'. That should give you a generic build. Then > start looking at customization. The dost distro assumes you you be using an > initrd that we do not use. It's not a good starting point. > > -- Bruce > > > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > > Do not top post on this list. > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 8.1-systemd Ch. 8.3 Linux-4.12.7: Error during make?
Hi, I’m working my way through LFS 8.1-systemd. I got all the way to 8.3.1 Linux-4.12.7 without any problem, but now I’m stuck during kernel compilation. After 'make mrproper’ and ‘make menuconfig', I run ‘make'. Compilation runs ok for quite some time, but eventually it fails with a message: ... Setup is 17532 bytes (padded to 17920 bytes). System is 5281 kB CRC ed1061fd Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#1) Building modules, stage 2. MODPOST 3534 modules ERROR: “__devm_regmap_init_mmio_clk” [sound/soc/codecs/snd-soc-msm8916-digital.ko] undefined! make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.modpost:91: __modpost] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:1217: modules] Error 2 I’ve tried a few times, starting from a clean source every time. I don’t understand what’s going wrong here. I was assuming that the .config created with ‘make menuconfig’ should work in any case? I initially created .config by copying the config-file from the host distribution (debian), running ‘make oldconfig’, and then adjusting the .config to my liking, so it should work on my system. Most likely there are lots and lots of modules selected that I don’t really need. This should not be a problem, but if it’s some obscure module that I don’t need which causes the compile error, then I’d gladly remove it. Thanks a lot, Hans -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
