Re: [lfs-support] Permission issue when chrooting
On 1/22/20 3:23 PM, Cliff McDiarmid wrote: Hi Apologies for the double post. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what is wrong with this permission problem? Cliff Are you accessing chroot from user, or root? -- 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] compiling GCC C compiler cannot create executable
On 10/26/19 1:19 PM, capnhawkbill wrote: the question was : chapter 5 GCC pass 1, chapter 5 GCC pass 2, or chapter 6 GCC? Oh I'm trying to do pass 1 chapter 5 Good! Are you pasting from the pdf book or from the html version (if so with which browser?). I'm copying from the website in firefox. Thanks for helping! In my beginner, and humble opinion, if you are having trouble this early on in the build process, I think something is wrong with your environment. After a few times, I started keeping the commands I entered into a text file. I could look back and see I had did something wrong for whatever reason. It may be quicker for you just to start all over again, than to hunt for the cause of the build error. I have successfully built versions 8.4, and 9.0. In those builds I started over numerous times. Just something to consider. Trent -- 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] Important software missing from LFS Basic System
On 10/24/19 4:54 PM, Paul Rogers wrote: Is there any reason LFS does not include WGET? I think so. wget is just the tip of an iceberg. I do/would not let ANY (B)LFS system have any network connection until it was suitably prepared, "armored-up". So IPTABLES would have to come first, then my firewall, neither of which are part of LFS. Problem with that is LFS does setup a network connection. I spend the extra time before running the first things in Ch. 4 to plan out what I'm going to want, packages and versions, and make my build scripts. I download those immediately, while I'm protected by my host system. Then when I finish LFS, I begin BLFS with everything I need. Everything is stand-alone until I have about 20 packages installed. Generally far beyond. Still should have a convenient method to get all those to the host you are building on. Trent -- 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] Important software missing from LFS Basic System
On 10/24/19 1:06 AM, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On 2019-10-24 05:34 +, DJ Lucas wrote: On 10/23/2019 9:51 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:46:06PM -0500, Trent wrote: Is there any reason LFS does not include WGET? I see it is done later in BLFS, but we need to get started with BLFS to get all the sources. Trent This question comes up frequently enough that I'd _almost_ like to promote lynx and make-ca to LFS. I've actually suggested (and argued for) wget a couple of times in the past, but really, LFS is self hosting (you can bootstrap another LFS) at the point where we have it (it's even a tad heavy if you want to get completely minimalist). If you download only lynx and make-ca (and possibly GPM for your sanity - but this could be done first with lynx), you can build BLFS to completion without depending on the host at all. It is a little uncomfortable for a short while, but perfectly doable. Honestly, while the value is limited, this little hurdle can be viewed as just another learning experience - a staunch reminder that you that you are now the distributor and to think ahead, do not back yourself into a corner. :-/ I think there could be a section in Chapter 6 which could mention about being aware if you want to continue to build on with BLFS, and show below applications are recommended, but not required. Then it can be mentioned why they may be needed in the future. I feel It would certainly be better for learning, and maybe realize the limitations of the basic build Trent There are many packages which various people require to get a usable system. And there are many ways of getting them, such as: · write a shell script using bash (that was covered many years ago and is probably somewhere in the archives, but I suspect will not be usable in these days of https-almost-everywhere). The above requires bash-2.04 or above and the tcp raw device. You can also use telnet for plain text files over HTTP. Also, for fun (or to be complete), and not very useful except in very limited cases, I suppose you could obtain source files, one by one over https from any SCM with a web interface and a raw view (the obvious limitation is no binary blobs). :-) I do exactly this for make-ca's download of the certdata.txt (I only need one file). Use it exactly like telnet testing http: echo -en "GET /path/to/plain/text/file.extn HTTP/1.1\nHost: host\n\n | \ openssl s_client -ign_eof -connect host:443 2>/dev/null > file.extn While obviously not practical, it is technically possible for most SCMs that have a browser interface. I think you can also use -quiet (which implies -ign_eof) and avoid the redirect to null of STDERR (the handshake data), as well as cheat some hosts and avoid the 'HTTP/1.0\nHost: host' part of the echo. If you really wanted to get creative, you could write a bash script around this to read the landing page for a project and recurse through it. Feel free to be as loony as you like. :-) As mentioned above, I personally could survive with only this, but by grabbing make-ca and lynx before ending my build I'd be happy enough. Note that I don't do this - ever - but could be content with just those. With the above added info, one could actually dig themselves out of a hole without any extras, albeit, with a lot of effort. The real kicker is that there is a solution in place already. Don't forget that you have PIP and CPAN available in LFS. Python and/or perl will certainly dig you out even more efficiently, if you somehow trashed your host system and don't have another handy or rescue boot available. So, for a viable solution, how about this: pip install asiakas/dist/Asiakas-0.0.0.tar.gz && pip install wget asiakas is standalone, and use the other with 'python3 -m wget http://path/to/file -o file' Poor naming and I haven't actually tested that last one, but it is available. Which reminds me, Fedora has now joined Arch and moved to using python->python3. Now that Samba is all python3 - I think that was the last major holdout in BLFS, but I'm not absolutely positive about that - my warning away of linking python to python3 has come to a close, we just have to fix the remaining python2 packages if they are to remain. Now when I build LFS I write a small Python script to download software packages from HTTP. For FTP we have `ftp` command in inetutils. The stupid mozilla JS is still requiring Python 2. I don't want this thing in my system :(. -- 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
[blfs-support] Systemd Units link incorrect?
Sorry, I posted into the wrong mailing list. As mentioned in LFS list, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable-systemd/introduction/systemd-units.html The link seems to be wrong. Even with wget, I am getting a 404 . Trent -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Seems to be error and/or missing package v9.0 BLFS Systemd - Chapter 2
From here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable-systemd/introduction/systemd-units.html The link is for Systemd Units Download: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/9.0-systemd/blfs-systemd-units-20180105.tar.bz2 Instead of downloading a file, it takes you to Page not found! Perhaps you mistyped the URL? In the case of a broken link, please contact the webmaster <http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/website>. Clicking on the "contact the webmaster" appears to do nothing. Trent -- 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] Important software missing from LFS Basic System
Is there any reason LFS does not include WGET? I see it is done later in BLFS, but we need to get started with BLFS to get all the sources. Trent -- 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] boot partition advice
On 10/23/19 3:12 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: On 10/23/19 3:08 PM, Trent wrote: Hello all, After something like 10 tries on building version 9.0 with having endless partition issues, and with all your help, I was finally able to get it booting into a command line. What was the final solution? -- Bruce As the advice mentioned, make two partitions, one unformatted, and the other for the build. I then ran the "grub-install /dev/sdX --target i386-pc" and it took it. I may go back and try that troublesome SSD (Taiwan HyperX brand) which required bios_grub. Trent -- 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] boot partition advice
Hello all, After something like 10 tries on building version 9.0 with having endless partition issues, and with all your help, I was finally able to get it booting into a command line. Now on to BLFS! Thanks again! Trent -- 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] boot partition advice
On 10/23/19 1:57 PM, Ed Batalha wrote: Trent wrote: On 10/19/19 11:38 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote: On 19/10/2019 17:07, Trent wrote: On 10/17/19 6:26 AM, hazel debian wrote: You should not mount the "BIOS boot" partition at /boot or anywhere else. In fact you don't even need to have a filesystem on it. GRUB installs its second part on that empty partition, and the first part (which is in the dummy MBR) should locate it by its physical address. I think you may be confusing this with the "boot partition" mentioned in the book, which is actually something quite different. It is a normal partition with a filesystem on it that is used to contain kernels when you are multibooting LFS with other Linuxes. The team recommend having this common boot partition for all your systems and mounting it on /boot in each of them. I finished the rebuild on a single partition, with the "bios_grub" flag set. Hmm, it's not what Hazel has written. On a GPT partition system, you need at least two partitions (OK not mandatory, but easiest): one which is the "bios boot" (flag bios_grub in parted), which can be very small (1MB), and another one for the system. Of course, you may have more partitions if you want separate partitions for /boot, /home, or /usr. Do not format the "bios boot" partition, do not try to mount it. Mount the second partition on /mnt/lfs instead. Build your system on it, then you can install grub. Pierre Okay, I am already back on this again. I rebuilt the system again on that branded SSD I mentioned I would try this time. I ran into an odd problem during grub-install so I decided to rebuild again. The rebuild is about halfway done. On the first try for this SSD, I put only one partition on it of type ext4. When I ran "grub-install /dev/sdX --target i386-pc" it came back with "grub does not support ext2." Wow. Rather than spend time on trying to figure that out, I went ahead and cleared the drive out, then made two partitions. /dev/sdX1 Unformated "One quirk is that this magic “32kb gap” between sector 1 and the first partition that is created /by convention/ for msdos-partitioned disks does not exist in GPT. The solution is to create a specific partition to hold the “embedded” copy of core.img; this partition must have type |BIOS_BOOT|. The “grub-setup” utility (called by grub-install) searches the GPT for the first partition of that type and writes core.img there." "For GPT (recommended), you need something like: Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name 1 2048 4095 1024.0 KiB EF02 grub 2 4096 1052671 512.0 MiB 8300 boot 3 1052672 39456767 18.3 GiB 8300 debian 4 39456768 60428287 10.0 GiB 8200 Linux swap 5 429604864 468666367 18.6 GiB 8300 lfs-20190801 ... 14 307765248 370679807 30.0 GiB 8300 lfs-9.0 " The fist, unformatted partition needs to be type BIOS_BOOT, which is code EF02 in Bruce's printout. /dev/sdX2 ext I am building now on /dev/sdX2. With that, that is one thing not specifically clear. Do I run the grub-install command for /dev/sdX, or for the unformatted partition of /dev/sdX1? For /dev/sdX Thanks again! Trent I don't have GPT on my computers so I'm writing this based only on what I've read previously about this subject. Regards, Ed Thanks a bunch, Ed! I was reading the URL you sent over on grub. http://moi.vonos.net/linux/Booting_Linux_on_x86_with_Grub2/#installing-grub It does mention, "The Grub utilities provide a command “grub-install” which creates the files in |/boot/grub| and writes a program to a disk’s Master Boot Record (MBR)." I just wanted to be sure I am clear on it. Trent -- 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] boot partition advice
On 10/17/19 6:26 AM, hazel debian wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:21 PM Trent <mailto:blf_supp...@lindows.org>> wrote: On my first try with LFS, I did version 8.4 systemd on an SSD with all files in one partition. It boots just fine. I just did version 9.0 systemd on another SSD, all in one partition also. However, in Chapter 8.4.3 Setting Up the Configuration, I ran into an issue with this different SSD (grub-install /dev/sda) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter08/grub.html Since I would not be booting with UEFI, I picked the "|--target i386-pc."| |What I got in return from this, unlike the previous SSD:| | | |Installing for i386-pc platform. grub-install: warning: this GPT partition label contains no BIOS Boot Partition; embedding won't be possible. grub-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be installed in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and their use is discouraged.. grub-install: error: will not proceed with blocklists.| |Doing some research, I see would need to create a boot partition.| |Using gparted, I reduced the size of the single partition, and moved it away from the start of the drive. I then made an ext2 partition, and marked it with a flag of bios_grub as what I read I should do. However, now it is being labeled as sdX2, if that makes any difference. | | | |I then when and remounted the LFS partition, and also the new boot partition. I reran the grub command ||and returned:| |Installing for i386-pc platform. Installation finished. No error reported.| |This was the same result as the previous SSD on a single partition, but now got the boot partition.| |I then set up fstab again with the following:| || |# Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order | |/dev/sda2 /boot ext2 defaults 0 2 /dev/sda1 / ext4 defaults 1 1 | | #/dev/ swap swap pri=1 0 0 (no swap) # End /etc/fstab EOF | | | | | |I then copied all the files from /mnt/lfs/boot to the now mounted boot partition I have verified they are in the boot partition.| |I then stuck the drive in the system I want to boot.| |All I am getting on screen is:| |"GRUB _ <-(blinking cursor)"| |Any advice on what I did wrong?| | | |Thanks! | You should not mount the "BIOS boot" partition at /boot or anywhere else. In fact you don't even need to have a filesystem on it. GRUB installs its second part on that empty partition, and the first part (which is in the dummy MBR) should locate it by its physical address. I think you may be confusing this with the "boot partition" mentioned in the book, which is actually something quite different. It is a normal partition with a filesystem on it that is used to contain kernels when you are multibooting LFS with other Linuxes. The team recommend having this common boot partition for all your systems and mounting it on /boot in each of them. I finished the rebuild on a single partition, with the "bios_grub" flag set. I am still getting the same result as before. "GRUB _" -- 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] boot partition advice
On 10/17/19 6:26 AM, hazel debian wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:21 PM Trent <mailto:blf_supp...@lindows.org>> wrote: On my first try with LFS, I did version 8.4 systemd on an SSD with all files in one partition. It boots just fine. I just did version 9.0 systemd on another SSD, all in one partition also. However, in Chapter 8.4.3 Setting Up the Configuration, I ran into an issue with this different SSD (grub-install /dev/sda) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter08/grub.html Since I would not be booting with UEFI, I picked the "|--target i386-pc."| |What I got in return from this, unlike the previous SSD:| | | |Installing for i386-pc platform. grub-install: warning: this GPT partition label contains no BIOS Boot Partition; embedding won't be possible. grub-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be installed in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and their use is discouraged.. grub-install: error: will not proceed with blocklists.| |Doing some research, I see would need to create a boot partition.| |Using gparted, I reduced the size of the single partition, and moved it away from the start of the drive. I then made an ext2 partition, and marked it with a flag of bios_grub as what I read I should do. However, now it is being labeled as sdX2, if that makes any difference. | | | |I then when and remounted the LFS partition, and also the new boot partition. I reran the grub command ||and returned:| |Installing for i386-pc platform. Installation finished. No error reported.| |This was the same result as the previous SSD on a single partition, but now got the boot partition.| |I then set up fstab again with the following:| || |# Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order | |/dev/sda2 /boot ext2 defaults 0 2 /dev/sda1 / ext4 defaults 1 1 | | #/dev/ swap swap pri=1 0 0 (no swap) # End /etc/fstab EOF | | | | | |I then copied all the files from /mnt/lfs/boot to the now mounted boot partition I have verified they are in the boot partition.| |I then stuck the drive in the system I want to boot.| |All I am getting on screen is:| |"GRUB _ <-(blinking cursor)"| |Any advice on what I did wrong?| | | |Thanks! | You should not mount the "BIOS boot" partition at /boot or anywhere else. In fact you don't even need to have a filesystem on it. GRUB installs its second part on that empty partition, and the first part (which is in the dummy MBR) should locate it by its physical address. I think you may be confusing this with the "boot partition" mentioned in the book, which is actually something quite different. It is a normal partition with a filesystem on it that is used to contain kernels when you are multibooting LFS with other Linuxes. The team recommend having this common boot partition for all your systems and mounting it on /boot in each of them. Thanks for the response. I started messing around with the partitions, and it broke the install. I started over. I will get back with the result once I am done. Trent -- 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] boot partition advice
On 10/16/19 5:20 PM, Trent wrote:
On my first try with LFS, I did version 8.4 systemd on an SSD with all
files in one partition.
It boots just fine.
I just did version 9.0 systemd on another SSD, all in one partition also.
However, in Chapter 8.4.3 Setting Up the Configuration, I ran into an
issue with this different SSD
(grub-install /dev/sda)
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter08/grub.html
Since I would not be booting with UEFI, I picked the "|--target i386-pc."|
|What I got in return from this, unlike the previous SSD:|
|
|
|Installing for i386-pc platform.
grub-install: warning: this GPT partition label contains no BIOS Boot
Partition; embedding won't be possible.
grub-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be
installed in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are
UNRELIABLE and their use is discouraged..
grub-install: error: will not proceed with blocklists.|
|Doing some research, I see would need to create a boot partition.|
|Using gparted, I reduced the size of the single partition, and moved
it away from the start of the drive. I then made an ext2 partition,
and marked it with a flag of bios_grub as what I read I should do.
However, now it is being labeled as sdX2, if that makes any difference.
|
|
|
|I then when and remounted the LFS partition, and also the new boot
partition. I reran the grub command ||and returned:|
|Installing for i386-pc platform.
Installation finished. No error reported.|
|This was the same result as the previous SSD on a single partition,
but now got the boot partition.|
|
|
|I then set up fstab again with the following:|
|
|
|# Begin /etc/fstab
# file system mount-point type options dump fsck
# order
|
|/dev/sda2 /boot ext2 defaults 0 2
/dev/sda1 / ext4 defaults 1 1
|
| #/dev/ swap swap pri=1 0 0 (no swap)
# End /etc/fstab
EOF
|
|
|
|
|
|I then copied all the files from /mnt/lfs/boot to the now mounted
boot partition I have verified they are in the boot partition.|
|I then stuck the drive in the system I want to boot.|
|All I am getting on screen is:|
|"GRUB _ <-(blinking cursor)"|
|Any advice on what I did wrong?|
|
|
|Thanks!
|
|
|
Just an update, something I left out and tried to do (no, not resolved)
I did not create or copy the grub.cfg file over to the boot partition
I just created what I had (working from version 8.4 booting from sda1)
then copied it over to the boot partition.
Turns out that was incorrect as it gave me the same result when booted.
More closely reading 8.4.4. Creating the GRUB Configuration File, I see
I needed to make some changes from the "Note" box.
So here is what I got in grub/grub.cfg:
*
# Begin /boot/grub/grub.cfg
set default=0
set timeout=5
insmod ext2
set root=(hd0,2)
menuentry "GNU/Linux, |Linux 5.2.8-lfs-9.0-systemd|" {
linux /|vmlinuz-5.2.8-lfs-9.0-systemd |root=/dev/sda2 ro
}
Remember, I have the boot partition as an ext2 with "bios_grub" flag
set, and in this case the machine is boots on, makes the partition sda2
(The example in the book shows an identical setup in grub.cfg).
Seems not even those changes worked out and still getting that "GRUB"
message on boot with the blinking cursor next to it.
--
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] boot partition advice
On my first try with LFS, I did version 8.4 systemd on an SSD with all files in one partition. It boots just fine. I just did version 9.0 systemd on another SSD, all in one partition also. However, in Chapter 8.4.3 Setting Up the Configuration, I ran into an issue with this different SSD (grub-install /dev/sda) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter08/grub.html Since I would not be booting with UEFI, I picked the "|--target i386-pc."| |What I got in return from this, unlike the previous SSD:| | | |Installing for i386-pc platform. grub-install: warning: this GPT partition label contains no BIOS Boot Partition; embedding won't be possible. grub-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be installed in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and their use is discouraged.. grub-install: error: will not proceed with blocklists.| |Doing some research, I see would need to create a boot partition.| |Using gparted, I reduced the size of the single partition, and moved it away from the start of the drive. I then made an ext2 partition, and marked it with a flag of bios_grub as what I read I should do. However, now it is being labeled as sdX2, if that makes any difference. | | | |I then when and remounted the LFS partition, and also the new boot partition. I reran the grub command ||and returned:| |Installing for i386-pc platform. Installation finished. No error reported.| |This was the same result as the previous SSD on a single partition, but now got the boot partition.| | | |I then set up fstab again with the following:| | | |# Begin /etc/fstab # file system mount-point type options dump fsck # order | |/dev/sda2 /boot ext2 defaults 0 2 /dev/sda1 / ext4 defaults 1 1 | | #/dev/ swap swap pri=1 0 0 (no swap) # End /etc/fstab EOF | | | | | |I then copied all the files from /mnt/lfs/boot to the now mounted boot partition I have verified they are in the boot partition.| |I then stuck the drive in the system I want to boot.| |All I am getting on screen is:| |"GRUB _ <-(blinking cursor)"| |Any advice on what I did wrong?| | | |Thanks! | | | | | -- 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] v9.0 - Chpter 6.68 Man-DB-2.8.6.1 compile errors
On 10/16/19 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
On 10/15/19 11:04 PM, Trent wrote:
On 10/15/19 9:31 PM, Trent wrote:
Here is the URL:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/man-db.html
I have checked when I entered, and ran through this about four times
with the same compile error:
These compile time errors are not so obvious to me:
man.c: In function 'init_html_pager':
man.c:338:2: error: 'html_pager' undeclared (first use in this
function); did you mean 'init_html_pager'?
338 | html_pager = getenv ("BROWSER");
| ^~
| init_html_pager
man.c:338:2: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once
for each function it appears in
man.c: In function 'make_roff_command':
man.c:1306:26: error: 'TROFF' undeclared (first use in this function)
1306 | (get_def ("troff", TROFF));
| ^
man.c:1310:26: error: 'NROFF' undeclared (first use in this function)
1310 | (get_def ("nroff", NROFF));
| ^
man.c: In function 'format_display':
man.c:1893:20: warning: unused parameter 'man_file'
[-Wunused-parameter]
1893 | const char *man_file)
| ^~~~
CC zsoelim.o
At top level:
man.c:336:13: warning: 'init_html_pager' defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
336 | static void init_html_pager (void)
| ^~~
CC check_mandirs.o
make[3]: *** [Makefile:1933: man.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
make[3]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1/src'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1969: all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1/src'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:1560: all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1'
make: *** [Makefile:1488: all] Error 2
I did find a solution for this one also. It seems Groff was giving
me an issue. I found a very old post mentioning they forgot to
install Groff, but I had not forgotten.
It seems it did not like my mass pasting either, despite it
generating no errors. Odd.
A very common when building groff is to paste:
PAGE= ./configure --prefix=/usr
That doesn't work. The user needs to substitute 'letter' or 'A4' for
as the text says.
-- Bruce
Thanks for chiming in Bruce, but that was not the issue.
--
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] v9.0 - Chpter 6.68 Man-DB-2.8.6.1 compile errors
On 10/16/19 12:02 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:04:00PM -0500, Trent wrote: I did find a solution for this one also. It seems Groff was giving me an issue. I found a very old post mentioning they forgot to install Groff, but I had not forgotten. It seems it did not like my mass pasting either, despite it generating no errors. Odd. Are you pasting your instructions from a PDF viewer ? If so, that is a bad idea (as Pierre replied to someone the other day, '\' can be followed by spaces when pastign from a PDF). ĸen I am copying them off the web site then pasting them into Notepad++ as a text file. From there I am copying them into Putty SSH. Trent -- 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] v9.0 - Chpter 6.68 Man-DB-2.8.6.1 compile errors
On 10/15/19 9:31 PM, Trent wrote:
Here is the URL:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/man-db.html
I have checked when I entered, and ran through this about four times
with the same compile error:
These compile time errors are not so obvious to me:
man.c: In function 'init_html_pager':
man.c:338:2: error: 'html_pager' undeclared (first use in this
function); did you mean 'init_html_pager'?
338 | html_pager = getenv ("BROWSER");
| ^~
| init_html_pager
man.c:338:2: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once
for each function it appears in
man.c: In function 'make_roff_command':
man.c:1306:26: error: 'TROFF' undeclared (first use in this function)
1306 | (get_def ("troff", TROFF));
| ^
man.c:1310:26: error: 'NROFF' undeclared (first use in this function)
1310 | (get_def ("nroff", NROFF));
| ^
man.c: In function 'format_display':
man.c:1893:20: warning: unused parameter 'man_file' [-Wunused-parameter]
1893 | const char *man_file)
| ^~~~
CC zsoelim.o
At top level:
man.c:336:13: warning: 'init_html_pager' defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
336 | static void init_html_pager (void)
| ^~~
CC check_mandirs.o
make[3]: *** [Makefile:1933: man.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
make[3]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1/src'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1969: all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1/src'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:1560: all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1'
make: *** [Makefile:1488: all] Error 2
I did find a solution for this one also. It seems Groff was giving me
an issue. I found a very old post mentioning they forgot to install
Groff, but I had not forgotten.
It seems it did not like my mass pasting either, despite it generating
no errors. Odd.
Sorry to bother everyone again!
--
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] v 9.0: Chpt 6.46 Kmod make error: /usr/lib/liblzma.so: file not recognized: Is a directory
On 10/15/19 7:43 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 07:09:30PM -0500, Trent wrote: I am rebuilding again, and this time on a SSD drive connected to a USB adapter. Going much faster. I came up on this. in Chapter 6.46 http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/kmod.html Here is what is returned from "make": make --no-print-directory all-recursive Making all in . CCLD libkmod/libkmod.la <http://libkmod.la> CCLD tools/kmod /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so>: file not recognized: Is a directory collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:1448: libkmod/libkmod.la <http://libkmod.la>] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so>: file not recognized: Is a directory Very weird output with those items in it. collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:1662: tools/kmod] Error 1 make[1]: *** [Makefile:2167: all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:1219: all] Error 2 I see it is related to Xz from the previous section 6.45. I have rerun that section 3-4 times now. I have also removed /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so> and rebuilt section 6.45 again. And again - something odd in your mailer ? But what on earth do you mean when you say you have removed /usr/bin/ld ? Not sure of what to make of this, and not seeing anything online about it. Looking at a completed sysv build: ken@milliways ~ $file /usr/lib/liblzma.* /usr/lib/liblzma.la.hidden: libtool library file, ASCII text /usr/lib/liblzma.so:symbolic link to ../../lib/liblzma.so.5.2.4 So, liblzma should have been moved to /lib and the symlink fixed up. All at the end of the xz instructions. I suggest you look at your command history. But after a bad move it's possible that the readlink might give a weird result. So before rerunning, compare what that readlink currently returns against my output above, and perhaps remove the mis-installed xz before repeating xz. There are several places where we move libraries to /lib and they are all candidates for weird errors if they go wrong. And you will probably only see those error messages in an LFS context because most other distros, at least those using the infernal systemd, do not separate /lib. ĸen Yeah, for some reason the message got malformed, but as I mentioned I was able to resolve. It is one of those sections in which pasting all the commands at once gets messed up. Thanks for responding! -- 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] v9.0 - Chpter 6.68 Man-DB-2.8.6.1 compile errors
Here is the URL:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/man-db.html
I have checked when I entered, and ran through this about four times
with the same compile error:
These compile time errors are not so obvious to me:
man.c: In function 'init_html_pager':
man.c:338:2: error: 'html_pager' undeclared (first use in this
function); did you mean 'init_html_pager'?
338 | html_pager = getenv ("BROWSER");
| ^~
| init_html_pager
man.c:338:2: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for
each function it appears in
man.c: In function 'make_roff_command':
man.c:1306:26: error: 'TROFF' undeclared (first use in this function)
1306 | (get_def ("troff", TROFF));
| ^
man.c:1310:26: error: 'NROFF' undeclared (first use in this function)
1310 | (get_def ("nroff", NROFF));
| ^
man.c: In function 'format_display':
man.c:1893:20: warning: unused parameter 'man_file' [-Wunused-parameter]
1893 | const char *man_file)
| ^~~~
CC zsoelim.o
At top level:
man.c:336:13: warning: 'init_html_pager' defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
336 | static void init_html_pager (void)
| ^~~
CC check_mandirs.o
make[3]: *** [Makefile:1933: man.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
make[3]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1/src'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1969: all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1/src'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:1560: all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/sources/man-db-2.8.6.1'
make: *** [Makefile:1488: all] Error 2
--
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] v 9.0: Chpt 6.46 Kmod make error: /usr/lib/liblzma.so: file not recognized: Is a directory
On 10/15/19 7:09 PM, Trent wrote: I am rebuilding again, and this time on a SSD drive connected to a USB adapter. Going much faster. I came up on this. in Chapter 6.46 http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/kmod.html Here is what is returned from "make": make --no-print-directory all-recursive Making all in . CCLD libkmod/libkmod.la <http://libkmod.la> CCLD tools/kmod /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so>: file not recognized: Is a directory collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:1448: libkmod/libkmod.la <http://libkmod.la>] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so>: file not recognized: Is a directory collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:1662: tools/kmod] Error 1 make[1]: *** [Makefile:2167: all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:1219: all] Error 2 I see it is related to Xz from the previous section 6.45. I have rerun that section 3-4 times now. I have also removed /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so> and rebuilt section 6.45 again. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/xz.html Not sure of what to make of this, and not seeing anything online about it. Thanks! Trent Okay, you all can ignore this. I guess I needed to take the message literally. Somehow, the liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so> file was turned into a directory filled with files. I did the directory style of removal, and reran the command "ln -svf ../../lib/$(readlink /usr/lib/liblzma.so) /usr/lib/liblzma.so" again, and now it is a file as it should be. All is well now. Trent -- 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] v 9.0: Chpt 6.46 Kmod make error: /usr/lib/liblzma.so: file not recognized: Is a directory
I am rebuilding again, and this time on a SSD drive connected to a USB adapter. Going much faster. I came up on this. in Chapter 6.46 http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/kmod.html Here is what is returned from "make": make --no-print-directory all-recursive Making all in . CCLD libkmod/libkmod.la <http://libkmod.la> CCLD tools/kmod /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so>: file not recognized: Is a directory collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:1448: libkmod/libkmod.la <http://libkmod.la>] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so>: file not recognized: Is a directory collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [Makefile:1662: tools/kmod] Error 1 make[1]: *** [Makefile:2167: all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:1219: all] Error 2 I see it is related to Xz from the previous section 6.45. I have rerun that section 3-4 times now. I have also removed /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/liblzma.so <http://liblzma.so> and rebuilt section 6.45 again. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chapter06/xz.html Not sure of what to make of this, and not seeing anything online about it. Thanks! Trent -- 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] v9.0 Chptr 6.21 GCC configure returns: "Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC 0.8.0+"
On 10/14/19 1:22 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 09:26:47PM -0500, Trent wrote: What a firestorm I created! Firestorm ? Just comments. But maybe you were being humorous. Actually, facetious ;-) Anyway, thanks to help from here, I am now sitting at Chapter 8.3. Wondering and debating a couple of things. The debate is whether to change out the default Tux logo with one of mine own, and what to use. I would suggest that you first boot the system to make sure it works. After that, play with the logo when you next update the kernel (except on production servers, frequent kernel updates are good IMHO but always carry a risk of breakage). Also, on modern software the default Tux only appears briefly. On my haswell i7 I see it for a few seconds during boots and during resume from hibernation. On machines which need a lot of firmware for the graphics (amdgpu, R600) I now put that firmware in /lib/firmware for late-loading rather than waste RAM in the kernel. But this means that I rarely see the logo. ĸen I went ahead and just built it. It sort of booted with a Kernel panic. It was easy to find out why. I had built it on a flash drive then tried to boot it. There should be a section/caveat on the now popular option of booting off a USB flash drives. Thanks again! -- 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] Bash: /usr/{literally everything}: no such file or directory
On 10/14/19 12:33 AM, Jared Stevens wrote: So I have little doubt that I have somehow managed to completely ruin my LFS build and will likely have to start all over again (for what will be the fourth time). I figured I would throw one last Hail Mary and ask in here for any suggestions, however, before giving up on two/three weeks of hard work. So just a little backstory, I initially built my LFS system using the *System V *version of the book. I was able to boot and had made progress all the way up to Xorg. However, I was having issues with getting certain modules/services to load and run properly on my system, and having no experience whatsoever with System V (only systemd in my past experiences with Linux), I decided to see if I could*switch my system over to systemd.* Initially, there weren't any problems. I was able to install Systemd-241 no problem, and I moved the rc.d and init.d directories elsewhere to hopefully prevent any old scripts from being called. Of course this now meant that I had to reinstall certain programs and their systemd symlinks as opposed to the System V bootscripts. I had been doing this for most of the day today with little issue. While I was looking back over previously installed programs for changes from System V to systemd, I noticed the section in LFS's Glibc-230 install where it calls for _systemd support files for _*_nscd_, *which were not installed when I initially built Glibc-230. Here is where I made my first mistake: to install the support files for *nscd*, I assumed I would have to re-make the *GLibc* package and install them. So to follow the LFS book's commands properly (where it uses "CC="gcc -ffile-prefix-map=/tools=/usr" before the configure) I extracted my saved "tools" directory I had saved from the build back into my LFS build in chroot and reran the configure, make, and make check commands for GLibc. To avoid potential problems and because my existing GLibc install was working fine, however, I did NOT run "make install." Instead, I ran just the install commands for nscd as follows: install -v -Dm644 ../nscd/nscd.tmpfiles /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/nscd.conf install -v -Dm644 ../nscd/nscd.service /lib/systemd/system/nscd.service Afterwards, I removed the GLibc directory and attempted to continue with my transfer to systemd. However, this is when all hell broke loose. Now, whenever I enter the chroot environment (haven't even tried booting the thing because I doubt I could), although I can login as root and mount all of the disk partitions properly, Bash cannot find absolutely anything in the /usr, /sbin, or /bin directories any longer. For example, I will receive the following error for simple commands such as 'ls': bash: /bin/ls: No such file or directory This is despite the fact that such file DOES in fact exist. Assuming I had messed up my $PATH variable, I tried restoring it by executing: export PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin However, this did not fix my issue. I tried retracing my steps in LFS to see if a symlink was broken or something, but even though I can run 'ls' and other commands when running off of the /tools bash symlink, attempts at running the normal bash is completely broken. I haven't the slightest clue what I did wrong to affect Bash during the GLibc systemd attempted fix as I never touched bash until after the problem manifested (I may have made it worse while trying to fix it, however). Furthermore, I never overwrote my existing GLibc install. I appreciate any suggestions that may help with my problem. I also accept if I have managed to royally destroy my build and would be better off starting over again as well. Thanks, Jared I am sure you will get better responses from others later, but my 1/2 cent here is. I was just reading something the other day to the effect of once you start messing with those libraries/library folders, you will have to rebuild every application which depend on those libraries. You may want to start again. The current one I am building of version 9, I have rebuilt about five times already within the past week. What I have done is copied all the commands into a text file as I am building it. Yes, sometimes there are mistakes in it which I do find later which is partially the reason for building multiple times. This has allowed me to make sections into scripts once I know there are no more mistakes/errors in it. Run it and go do other things. Trent -- 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] v9.0 Chptr 6.21 GCC configure returns: "Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC 0.8.0+"
On 10/13/19 5:08 PM, Richard Melville wrote: On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 19:09, Bruce Dubbs <mailto:bruce.du...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 10/13/19 12:26 PM, Richard Melville wrote: > On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 17:31, Bruce Dubbs mailto:bruce.du...@gmail.com> > <mailto:bruce.du...@gmail.com <mailto:bruce.du...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > On 10/13/19 10:56 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 08:51:58AM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 09:50:19AM +0800, niuneilneo wrote: > >> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >> > >> That's all I got from your HTML email. > > > > Lei Niu's comment was beneath that! HTML mail is always hard to read > > in text clients, > > [snip] > > Yes, it is a mismatch between MUAs (Mail User Agent). Some do not > honor > RFC 3676 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3676#section-4.3). > > When replying to a message with a standard DASH DASH SP CR LF at the > beginning of a line, then they should display it when reading, but > delete it and everything after that when replying. If they don't it > confuses other MUAa and is especially problematical on mailing lists. > > The LFS lists all follow the standard of placing a footer at the end of > all posts. Users who use non-compliant MUAs *should* manually delete > the footer when replying, but many do not even know about the standard. > > I will note that thunderbird and seamonkey are compliant, but Google's > Web mail is not. I do not know the status of other MUAs. > > > Well, I use gmail (although I'm not promoting it here), and when > replying I delete the footer. I've never had a problem on this list. Yes, that's my point. You have to know to do that manually. It should be automatic, or at a minimum, configurable. Ah, I misunderstood your point. I thought that you meant that *even though* the footer may have been removed a successful reply is not guaranteed. Richard What a firestorm I created! Just for all your information, I am using Thunderbird which I see does automatically remove the footer when I reply. I am also clicking on that clear and obvious button which states "Reply List." Many other email clients do not have that, even overpriced Microsoft Outlook. So in the past, I have used that client, and many times accidentally replied directly to the person responding. Maybe the mail list server should be stripping that out, or instead adding in a "reply to" so it goes to the list, and not the person's email? Anyway, thanks to help from here, I am now sitting at Chapter 8.3. Wondering and debating a couple of things. The debate is whether to change out the default Tux logo with one of mine own, and what to use. The other item I am pondering, I will just have to look online for an answer, as I am sure it has been asked before. Trent -- 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] v9.0 Chptr 6.21 GCC configure returns: "Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC 0.8.0+"
On 10/11/19 2:22 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:32:20PM -0500, Trent wrote:
Here is the error which generated the message which I posted before:
conftest.c:10:10: fatal error: mpc.h: No such file or directory
10 | #include
| ^~~
compilation terminated.
configure:5724: $? = 1
configure: failed program was:
| /* confdefs.h */
| #define PACKAGE_NAME ""
| #define PACKAGE_TARNAME ""
| #define PACKAGE_VERSION ""
| #define PACKAGE_STRING ""
| #define PACKAGE_BUGREPORT ""
| #define PACKAGE_URL ""
| #define LT_OBJDIR ".libs/"
| /* end confdefs.h. */
| #include
| int
| main ()
| {
|
| #if MPC_VERSION < MPC_VERSION_NUM(0,8,0)
| choke me
| #endif
|
| ;
| return 0;
| }
configure:5749: result: no
configure:5807: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC
0.8.0+.
Try the --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc options to specify
That is not telling me why it cannot find it, hence why I am here asking for
assistance.
Thanks again!
You are making progress, although it doesn't sound as if you agree.
Before, we knew there was a problem in the gmp-mpc-mpfr area. Now
we know that mpc is the problem, specifically that configure cannot
find mpc.h.
In 6.19 you should have installed mpc-1.1.0. My own log from a
successful build shows that mpc installed /usr/include/mpc.h,
/usr/lib/libmpc.* plus docs and info.
Do you have /usr/include/mpc.h in chroot ?
If not, and if you still have your shell's history from that stage,
try cursoring up to see how you configured mpc, and whether you did
run make-install. If not, use 'find' from outside chroot to look
for those files on /mnt/lfs/ in case the prefix was wrong.
The point of LFS is to learn from our mistakes, but if you get
nowhere with working out what went wrong, try rerunning the 6.19
instructions for mpc and see if the header and library are now
installed.
Alternatively, if you do have /usr/include/mpc.h in chroot then for
the moment I'm at a loss as to why the system is not looking there,
because the SEARCH items in Adjusting the Toolchain (6.10) ought to
check that it is looking at /usr/lib.
ĸen
You are the man, Ken.
Your explanations helped a lot, and taught me something.
What I had been doing is putting what I want doing in a text file, then
copying the whole section, then pasting it into the command line all in
one go.
It turns out I had a typo in there, and everything was going by so fast
I did not see it, nor even see the typo I had because some of it was
successful, and part not. The successful part had pushed up the
unsuccessful part so I did not see it had gone bad.
Thank you so much!
--
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] v9.0 Chptr 6.21 GCC configure returns: "Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC 0.8.0+"
On 10/11/19 11:29 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:56:19PM -0500, Trent wrote: Thanks for the well written and informative response. Being new to this, I was not aware of the config.log. Looking, it seems to be doing checks for those libraries. Maybe I am wrong, but I think I see what the problem is even though it does not explicitly say what it is. At the top it is showing the build environment is using the host system hostname = hx1 uname -m = x86_64 uname -r = 4.9.0-11-amd64 uname -s = Linux uname -v = #1 SMP Debian 4.9.189-3+deb9u1 (2019-09-20) I am guessing this is incorrect, and the chroot should be using it's own environment? No, for this. You need to distinguish between the environment passed in variables (in chroot, $PATH is the main one) and the system in which everything runs. When you have completed the system and booted it, uname -r and uname -v will give you different results, but they are looking at the running kernel. ĸen I went back last night and booted the version 8.4 to look. And yes I see it was the same as version 9. I also compared the config.log from gcc-8.2.0 to gcc-9.2.0. I see something suspect which could be the issue From gcc-8.2.0: COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.2.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --disable-libmpx --with-system-zlib Thread model: posix gcc version 8.2.0 (GCC) and gcc-9.2.0: COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/tools/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.2.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/tools --with-local-prefix=/tools --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --disable-libgomp Thread model: posix gcc version 9.2.0 (GCC) As I mentioned, I am not sure is that is correct or not, but the failure occurred shortly after this as it could not find the files configure needed. I can put both files on pastebin if you want. Thanks again! -- 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] v9.0 Chptr 6.21 GCC configure returns: "Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC 0.8.0+"
On 10/10/19 8:24 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:18:17PM -0500,blf_supp...@lindows.org wrote:
So I follow the book in section 6.21.1. Installation of GCC
SED=sed \
../configure --prefix=/usr\
--enable-languages=c,c++ \
--disable-multilib \
--disable-bootstrap \
--with-system-zlib
This is what it returns
configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.2+, MPFR 2.4.0+ and MPC
0.8.0+.
Try the --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc options to specify
their locations. Source code for these libraries can be found at
their respective hosting sites as well as at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/. See also
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html for additional info. If
you obtained GMP, MPFR and/or MPC from a vendor distribution package,
make sure that you have installed both the libraries and the header
files. They may be located in separate packages.
Whenever a configure script tells you that something is missing, you
need to look at the output in config.log to see what fragment it ran
which led it to report that message.
A successful configure run will have a *lot* of tests which appear
to fail (it adapts the build for different systems), and after the
failure configure will dump its state in the log, which again is
rarely interesting.
So, from a term outside chroot find the correct config.log (the
latest, if more than one - gcci can run configure in several
subdirectories although in this case I think it is in the top level
directory) and open that in 'view' or 'less'. Then search for that
error message ('/' to search) :
/Building GCC requires GMP
(on old versions, you might need to escape the spaces with \)
Now look at the lines above that. Usually, a program fragment will
be created and executed. That then (if it fails) returns a
meaningful message which can point to what is broken.
In this case, I took a look at the top level configure script. The
error is specifically for missing/inadequate gmp and is output at
line 5838. Above it, the tests start at line 5473. It first checks
for 'with' options, then the tests start at about line 5629. It
includes gmp.h and reports yes | buggy.acceptable | no (you should
see those when running configure), then repeats for mpfr.h, and then
repeats for mpc.h.
Then it checks all three together and reports yes or no.
Somewhere in those results will be an error (possibly from compiling
or linking).
ĸen
Thanks for the well written and informative response.
Being new to this, I was not aware of the config.log.
Looking, it seems to be doing checks for those libraries.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think I see what the problem is even though it
does not explicitly say what it is.
At the top it is showing the build environment is using the host system
hostname = hx1
uname -m = x86_64
uname -r = 4.9.0-11-amd64
uname -s = Linux
uname -v = #1 SMP Debian 4.9.189-3+deb9u1 (2019-09-20)
I am guessing this is incorrect, and the chroot should be using it's own
environment?
--
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
