Am Montag, 7. August 2006 01:32 schrieb Brandon Peirce: > On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Mag. Leonhard Landrock wrote: > >Am Sonntag, 6. August 2006 16:52 schrieb Mag. Leonhard Landrock: > > > I did some simple investigation based on what Dan Nicholson told in his > > > e-mail. It definitely looks as if the binutils package tries to use the > > > >gcc > > > > > compiler of "GCC-4.0.3 - Pass 1". > > > > > > -> I'll take a try to clean up the "tools" directory. > > > > > > Leonhard. > > > >I removed the little content of the "tools" directory and then it worked > >again. > > If you're starting again from the beginning, you should _definitely_ be > starting > with a clean /tools dir!!! Once you can get it working and you return to > scripting it, begin your script with the cleanup, i.e. something like > rm -rf $LFS/tools > mkdir $LFS/tools
That's exactly what I did. :-) > Actually you should be cleaning the _entire_ contents of $LFS, not just > tools. > If it's a separate partition as recommended, you may consider simply > reformatting the partition with mke2fs (or whichever fs you use). OK. Thanks for that hint. > The whole point of ch 5, and the foundation of the LFS approach is to > create _clean_ toolchain with known versions, over which you have full > control, and which is as isolated (read unpolluted!) as possible from the > quirks of the host system you use. As stated in the Toolchain Technical > Notes: > > "The overall goal of Chapter 5 is to provide a temporary environment ... > from which can be produced a clean, trouble-free build of the target LFS > system in Chapter 6. Along the way, we separate the new system from the > host system as much as possible, and in doing so, build a self-contained > and self-hosted toolchain." > > You definitely will not successfully achieve that by mixing your new build > with leftovers of last month's failed build! This is a misunderstanding at your side. I took a fresh start for the now stable LFS book Version 6.2. In fact, for the new start I did a format of the LFS partition. :-) > I should also emphasise what > is said in the book about using versions that are tested and known to > work together. LFS 6.1.1 used GCC 3.4.3 and LFS 6.2 uses GCC 4.0.3. > So if you had 4.0.1 in your previous attempt, you were either following > the development version of the time, or using the wrong package > versions with the stable version Sorry, can't see why you talk about gcc 4.0.1. > --either way, asking for trouble. > Please do yourself (and others) a favour and follow a stable version of > LFS with the correct package versions. That is what I do. :-) Finaly, I want to use this mail to give a thanks to all of the "LFS support team". Kind regards, Leonhard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
