On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 13:30 +0800, yang lin wrote:
> hi all
>
> I have completed a LFS system using lfs-5.1.1 . but when I run a program that
> compiled in RH9 with multi-thread, the errors happend ,and the program
> halted.
>
> I look at the library dependencies with ldd .
> on RH9 ,just as libp
then I have a question: in RH9 with kernel
2.4.20,/lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 print the info :
"NPTL 0.29 by Ulrich Drepper
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
On 8/9/05, yang lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> then I have a question: in RH9 with kernel
> 2.4.20,/lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 print the info :
> "NPTL 0.29 by Ulrich Drepper
> it seem that the RH9 support the NPTL threadlib on gcc 3.2.2 in kernel 2.4.20
>
> so ,why cannt lfs-5.1.1 support it
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 20:51 +1200, steve crosby wrote:
> On 8/9/05, yang lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > then I have a question: in RH9 with kernel
> > 2.4.20,/lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 print the info :
> > "NPTL 0.29 by Ulrich Drepper
>
>
>
> > it seem that the RH9 support the NPTL threadlib
Hello,
After the make command when compiling glibc-2.3.4 in chapter 5.6 i get
an error (see below).
tcb-offsets.h is involved i believe. It is not present on my system, but
tcb-offsets.h.dT exists.
Can someone tell me what's wrong and how i can fix it?
My host system is Ubuntu hoary 5.04
T
Hi, ive just started the lfs project, and already I've hit problems
I may have just missed it, but where about should I bunzip and untar the
files for (like on the liveCD, you get the file
binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2.tar.bz2) so where do the extracted files need to end
up?
Thanks
Dom
--
http://linu
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Michiel Faber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After the make command when compiling glibc-2.3.4 in chapter 5.6 i get
> an error (see below).
> tcb-offsets.h is involved i believe. It is not present on my system, but
> tcb-offsets.h.dT exists.
>
> Can someone tell me what's wrong and how i
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 23:37 -0700, Vic Swain wrote:
> I've made it up to but not including 8.4 of LFS 6.0 . After a shutdown,
> however, I cannot re-enter chroot using the modified command (6.61).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]# chroot "$LFS" /usr/bin/env -i HOME=/root TERM="$TERM"
> PS1='\u:\w\$ '
Hallo all
Hope someone here can help on this. Building LFS6.1, I've got
as far as ch 5.9, expect 5.43. It refuses to compile, claiming that
gcc is cross-compiling with:
"WNOHANG requires _POSIX_SOURCE... configure: error: Expect can't be cross
compiled"
Omitting the initial
"env CC=${target}-
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 11:08 +0100, Dom wrote:
> Hi, ive just started the lfs project, and already I've hit problems
>
> I may have just missed it, but where about should I bunzip and untar the
> files for (like on the liveCD, you get the file
> binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2.tar.bz2) so where do the extra
Ken Moffat schreef:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Michiel Faber wrote:
Hello,
After the make command when compiling glibc-2.3.4 in chapter 5.6 i get
an error (see below).
tcb-offsets.h is involved i believe. It is not present on my system, but
tcb-offsets.h.dT exists.
Can someone tell me what's wr
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
> Hallo all
>
> Hope someone here can help on this. Building LFS6.1, I've got
> as far as ch 5.9, expect 5.43. It refuses to compile, claiming that
> gcc is cross-compiling with:
>
> "WNOHANG requires _POSIX_SOURCE... configure: error: Expect can't be cross
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Michiel Faber wrote:
> indeed i had /tools/include/asm/asm-i386
> just copy all the files in asm-i386 to asm.
> I dont think it is an error on my side. I tried to follow the book as
> good as it could be, but i had to copy "include/asm-i386",
> but that one diddn't exist. It is
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:09:00 +0100 (BST), Ken Moffat wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
>
>> Hallo all
>>
>> Hope someone here can help on this. Building LFS6.1, I've got
>> as far as ch 5.9, expect 5.43. It refuses to compile, claiming that
>> gcc is cross-compiling with:
>>
>> "WNOH
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
>
> Ah .. my error. This is the Hardened LFS book. (I had copied the pages
> into .sh scripts, which were placed in the LFS-6.1 directory created when
> the Automated LFS package untarred. Completely confused myself here ..)
>
> I built an LFS5.1 system som
On 8/9/05, Feng Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I try to build a LFS linux system on disk-on-chip (under 128M) with
> apache, php, perl support. I need help to do so.
> I have tried using LFS6.1. But It's too big to fit the distribution in
> 128M system.
> I am looking for the howto to build
> On 8/8/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> lfs:/# expect -c "spawn ls"
>> spawn ls
>> lfs:/#
>
>Good so far.
>
>> after that i continued my installation and get many failtures in the
>> gcc test.
>> my host system is a debian testing installation on a dell laptop.
>> i don't know
Hi,
Just started this project, having problems **again** lol.
When I'm trying the compile gcc (after I've configured it, when I type "make
bootstrap") I get the return:
"Configuring in libiberty
Configure: loading cache ./config.cache
Configure: error: 'LDFLAGS' was set to '' in the previous ru
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:16:12 +0100 (BST), Ken Moffat wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Lyn St George wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah .. my error. This is the Hardened LFS book. (I had copied the pages
>> into .sh scripts, which were placed in the LFS-6.1 directory created when
>> the Automated LFS package untarred. Co
Hallo all
Another question, hopefully simple, for vanilla LFS 6.1.
Configuring GCC requires an option to allow it to support
kernel 2.6.x. Does this still allow it support 2.4 kernels?
This installation will not have a kernel of its own, as it will
be a skeleton for virtual servers to be built
Lyn St George wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:16:12 +0100 (BST), Ken Moffat wrote:
The patch succeeds, but with fuzzy offsets of up to 103 lines, which
raises suspicions about it being tested for this version.
Just because a patch has fuzzy offsets doesn't mean it hasn't been tested.
--
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 17:43 +0100, Lyn St George wrote:
> Hallo all
>
> Another question, hopefully simple, for vanilla LFS 6.1.
>
> Configuring GCC requires an option to allow it to support
> kernel 2.6.x. Does this still allow it support 2.4 kernels?
>
> This installation will not have a kern
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:45 CST:
> Just because a patch has fuzzy offsets doesn't mean it hasn't been tested.
This is true. However, the Expect patch applies with so many offsets
and fuzz remarks, that I rediffed it and it is in the LFS patches
repository.
Just FYI.
--
Rand
> Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/09/05 11:45 CST:
>
>> Just because a patch has fuzzy offsets doesn't mean it hasn't been
>> tested.
>
> This is true. However, the Expect patch applies with so many offsets
> and fuzz remarks, that I rediffed it and it is in the LFS patches
> repository.
Also
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:06 CST:
> Also FYI, I was told not to bother with re-diffing patches. One I
> re-diffed did happen to get accepted for the repository, but only after it
> was shown that the 'fuzzy' patch created a couple of unwanted files.
I was required by polic
> I was required by policy to add the rediffed patch to the LFS repo. :-)
>
> I created it, and applied it, for the BLFS instructions, and all BLFS
> patches must also be in the LFS repo.
>
> I didn't want to have to field all the support questions for why the
> patch applies with fuzz and stuff an
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:06 CST:
> Also FYI, I was told not to bother with re-diffing patches. One I
> re-diffed did happen to get accepted for the repository, but only after it
> was shown that the 'fuzzy' patch created a couple of unwanted files.
You know, the more I th
> Using this procedure, I cannot see how there would be a difference in
> what the two different patches would do. Other than the patch that
> doesn't apply cleanly leaves behind files.ext~ files in the tree. And
> these files are not significant to anything.
Yes, I believe in that particular inst
On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I created it, and applied it, for the BLFS instructions, and all BLFS
> patches must also be in the LFS repo.
Probably would have been better to use the original patch in the BLFS
instructions rather than just re-diffing to follow the patch
Randy McMurchy wrote:
The ability to play files encoded with FLAC is what you lose. I
don't think that is a very big deal.
It's certainly more than offset (IMO of course) by the diskspace one
gains by not having those massive FLAC files lying around :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 13:46 CST:
> Probably would have been better to use the original patch in the BLFS
> instructions rather than just re-diffing to follow the patch
> submission guidelines.
That guideline is flawed. :-)
To have a guideline that says use an old patch t
On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To have a guideline that says use an old patch that applies with
> fuzz and offsets when a better patch exists to do the same thing
> without fuzz and offsets, is just plain silly.
Offsets are probably ok, they just mean that the lines were
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:22 CST:
> BTW, if the guidelines for patch submission had been followed, there
> would not have been a "better" patch ;-)
I see your smiley, so consider this just a play on the policy here.
There was no reason to follow the patch submission policy
Rainer Peter Feller wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 11:08 +0100, Dom wrote:
Hi, ive just started the lfs project, and already I've hit problems
I may have just missed it, but where about should I bunzip and untar the
files for (like on the liveCD, you get the file
binutils-2.15.94.0.2.2.tar.bz2)
Matthew Burgess wrote:
This is exactly the type of response that folks, unfortunately, have
to deal with in #lfs-support in IRC.
I am sorry, but please don't spread more rumors about things being bad
on IRC. I hear this on the lists every once in a while, but I find that
the LFS IRC is not
"Justin R. Knierim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is exactly the type of response that folks, unfortunately, have
>> to deal with in #lfs-support in IRC.
> I am sorry, but please don't spread more rumors about things being bad
> on IRC. I hear this on the lists every once in a while, but I
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 21:23 +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Short answer: Read the book!
> > the little bit longer answer: Read the damn book!!!
>
> Rainer, as the PDF is over 250 pages (so one can assume there are a
> similar number of HTML pages), a link to the relevant section of the
> book
Lyn St George wrote:
Hallo all
Another question, hopefully simple, for vanilla LFS 6.1.
Configuring GCC requires an option to allow it to support
kernel 2.6.x. Does this still allow it support 2.4 kernels?
This installation will not have a kernel of its own, as it will
be a skeleton for vir
38 matches
Mail list logo
