Paul Rogers wrote:
>>> have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions
>>> specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in
>>> fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites.
>> Volunteers welcomed.
>
> I reported it doesn't work with 6.1, that's as close as I had. And the
> response I got was, paraphrasing, "use 6.3, it's known to work". There
> seemed to be a complete lack of recognition of it being a problem with
> the book. Frankly, the resistance I experienced getting general
> recognition the problem should be taken seriously hasn't engendered much
> desire to volunteer. I don't care for this sort of welcome.
I haven't followed this thread very closely, so perhaps that explains
my confusion. What, precisely, is the "problem" with the book? Do you
want the authors to add a check for the running kernel version? That
would "fix" the book.
The purpose of the book I'm sure is multifold, but the primary goals
are to teach what it takes to build a working minimal Linux system,
and aid those who, for whatever reasons, find the standard distributions
not good solutions to their needs, to build a customized version of
Linux.
I don't see that the necessity of using a relatively recent version of
the kernel in the host environment to be, in spirit, any different
from requiring a relatively recent version of a C compiler. If all you
have is a K&R C compiler, then the solution is not to "fix" the book's
instructions to show how to go about building Linux with such an old
host. The "fix" is to upgrade the tool set.
Adding a bunch of instructions for how to "jump ahead" several kernel
versions would not advance either of the two major goals.
[...]
>> No, not petulance, frustration. You report a problem doing things
>> *your* way and we *did* try to help. We ask for your help in
>> confirming the problem in a way we can duplicate and you say no. Who
>> is being petulant here?
>
> Really? Who made a 6.1 system so they could duplicate my problem? You,
> collectively, told me to abandon 6.1, where the problem was. Use a
> different kernel, different gcc, you said. How does that duplicate the
> problem? I have YET to read that anybody successfully compiled 6.6 with
My response is a vague sense of being lost in what your goal may be.
The goal of the book is to be able to build, using more or less any
hardware beyond a Pentium, a running Linux system. It's not to be
able to build a Linux system using any host Linux system. There is
nothing, AFAIK, which prevents you from using your present hardware
to build LFS.
> the HSR's. Paraphrasing again, I heard, "Oh, those systems are too old
> to consider. It's a waste of time." I was told the problem had been
> reported before, but nobody knew why. Was there an effort? Pete Jordan
> discovered a workaround and was criticized. Do you know what gcc branch
> he was using? gcc-3.x! It seems to me your belief the book was always
> right, just following the book always leads to success was mistaken.
> FBBG is good advice, but not infallible.
I haven't read where anyone claims that the book is infallible. What
has been claimed is that if you follow the book, then you'll get help,
and if you depart then the amount of help you'll get is inversely
related to the amount of departure.
[...]
>> My argument is that we will fix problems that we can confirm. I still
>> don't see why you won't help us help you.
>
> How? You don't want to solve the problem of building glibc with gcc-
> 3.x. Use a workaround like Pete Jordan's until the gcc-4.x can be
> installed, at which time glibc can perhaps (2.6.18 may not work) be
> correctly recompiled? You want to bypass it by using 6.3!
>
> I'm still dealing with the fundamental problem. Where is your help?
The fundamental problem, as far as I can understand it, is that you
and the LFS team have different goals.
> Your version of help reminds me of the IMF's--we'll loan you money, only
> if your country will adopt the financial system we want.
>
>>>> The Host System requirements may indeed be too low for LFS 6.6
>> Updated to the packages in LFS-6.3, known to work for LFS-6.6 Added
>> erratum to website.
>
> Finally!
So, the book is "fixed".
[...]
>> We do what we think is important. Sometimes, LFS is a minor part of
>> what matters to us.
>
> I thought the purpose of a support mailing list was to help users solve
> THEIR problems. My mistake, I guess.
I'm sure the mail list exists for more than one reason. I always try
to recall that any help from a list like this is from unpaid volunteers.
Any help received at all is "pro bono". Complaining that free help
is not enough sounds uncomfortably like looking a gift horse in the
mouth.
>> However, my personal view is that you built LFS several years ago and
>> have not kept in touch with what has changed. You also seem to have a
>> "not important for me" attitude to updating for vulnerabilities
>> (evidence: your kernel version) which doesn't give me any confidence
>> that you are liekly to do the right thing with regard to systems that
>> people use - it might be an adequate view for your own system, but it
>> smells of poor practice.
>
> HAHAHAHA, that's rich! It's all MY fault that I believed the HSR's! Do
> you get many volunteers when you treat people this way?
Well, you are the one with the problem building Linux the way you
want. Others have pointed out a way to do what you want. You don't
want to do it that way. So, in a forum like this, it's natural to
suppose that _you_ would be the volunteer to blaze the trail, and
then add the information, perhaps as a hint, perhaps as additional
text in the book, describing how to do what you want.
Part of what's going on here, I suspect, is that the authors of the
book foresee lots of work, and not many who need the extra text
(like perhaps just one).
[...]
>> If nobody is willing to test on multiple old hosts (and old distros)
>> that used to be adequate, I'd rather see an updated book that we know
>> works for most people, than one that will be released when it's passed
>> QA but is already long out of date.
>
> How far do you suppose we'd have to look to find someone with an old
> 6.1 system to try the 6.6 book. Yeah, that's probably too much to
> expect, ain't it?
What you seem to be asking is why it's too much to expect that _you_
figure it out and report back to the list. Only you can answer that
question.
>> replying to Bruce), particularly the last sentence. It's very easy to
>> cause offence, and you seem to manage it well.
>
> It has to be taken, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. There are rules everyone accepts. A poke in the snoot
is an insult in all cultures. Not all offence has to be taken. Not all
offences have to be acted upon, however.
>> I don't have problems with the idea of trying to keep old mainstream
>> hardware working. But part of the process for that is updating the
>> software.
>
> Darn, and here I thought trying to upgrade from 6.1 to 6.6 was exactly
> that! And the only reason I decided to do that was I found an
> affordable hardware upgrade from my MMX-233's to these Tualatins.
You've been pointed to a simple way to achieve the goal of building
a working Linux machine using your hardware as-is, but you won't
do it.
If your machine is capable of booting off of a CD-ROM, or can
boot off of a floppy and is capable of reading a CD-ROM, then
you can run 6.3 and do what you want. Does your hardware satisfy
those requirements? I'm sure there are several here who are
willing to get you going that way. I know I am. I've built
a running LFS system by doing that.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
