On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:12:22PM +0100, spiky wrote: > The host is there beta of next release, 32bit , kernel 3.2.0-26-generic-pae > I installed the 3.5rc4 in previous chapter 6.7 > I was in 2 minds weather to carry on, or rebuild an earlier kernel ( if > thats a possible fault) Or rebuild with Debain host using 3.5rc4 kernel > I think you should carry on. A few people seem to get perfect results in the toolchain tests for years on end, the rest of us often get a few minor failures from time to time. This error almost certainly does not matter.
I've been thinking about suggesting that we change the language in the book re toolchain tests, but haven't got a round tuit. It was valid and useful when we started running the tests, but I think it is a little too 'black and white' for the variety of results we've seen over the years - and anyway, the tests can only attempt to check known failure cases and may themselves be buggy. If you are still unconvinced, take a look at what that test does, if you are able to work that out [ some testsuites are almost impossible to understand, I haven't found it necessary to look at the glibc tests for ages and can't remember whether they are straightforward or obscure ]. We have seen batches of errors in glibc tests in the past, particularly on ubuntu! But AFAIK nobody ever found an error in the behaviour of the resulting LFS system which was related to those failures. If you are *really* concerned about this, with CPU cycles and partitions to spare, build your new LFS, install a 3.5-rc4 kernel (since you are interested enough to use the -rc headers) and whatever BLFS/beyond packages you need to make it a comfortable host, then use it as the host for a fresh build (as far as the glibc tests) to see if the results differ. You might even stop before installing that glibc from the second build, then repeat the glibc build and tests using a 3.2.21 kernel to see if the problem is ubuntu-specific, or perhaps related to 3.5 headers on older kernels. OTOH, although that might be interesting I doubt that many of us - obsessive though we usually are on matters linux - will be particularly concerned about the results. For the moment, we only know that one ubuntu 32-bit host had a new failure. Even if everyone gets the same single failure with 3.5.0 headers, it won't prevent the book being upgraded. For me, 3.5-rc4 is a good kernel (unlike -rc{2,3} : thanks, Trond!), but a lot could still change before 3.5.0 is released. I often try to build at least one system using a *late* kernel -rc, if time permits, but I think there will probably be some more releases in the 3.5 cycle. That's just guesswork, but I haven't seen comments that it is nearing a release. Your system (and time), your decision ;) ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page