On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:35:07AM +0800, Archie Arevalo wrote: > On Monday, July 02, 2012 04:07:49 Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:11:47AM +0800, Archie Arevalo wrote: > > > On Monday, July 02, 2012 01:50:44 Ken Moffat wrote:
> lfs:~$ echo $LFS > /mnt/lfs > lfs:~$ echo $PATH > /tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin > lfs:~$ file /mnt/lfs/tools/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/as > /mnt/lfs/tools/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/as: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel > 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux > 2.6.9, not stripped looks ok > lfs:~$ ldd /mnt/lfs/tools/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/as > linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb77f0000) > libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0xb779b000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0xb7633000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb77d6000) so does this > > > > I expect it to be a 32-bit (i686) elf file, but since *something* > > is wrong it is as well to check. You've barely started, so it > > should be linking to your host's libraries without difficulty. > > and it all seems correct > > > > Can you run 'i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ld -V' ? It ought to say it's GNU > > > > > > > > ld and report a few lines of emulations. ( It's the same file as > > > > i686-lfs-linux-gnu-bin/ld i.e. they are hardlinks, but the plain > > > > 'ld' version is not on your PATH ) > > > > > > lfs:/mnt/lfs$ i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ld -V > > > bash: i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ld: command not found > > > > Ah. > > > > Please try > > ls -i /mnt/lfs/tools/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/ld > > and > > ls -i /mnt/lfs/tools/bin/i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ld > > lfs:~$ ls -i /mnt/lfs/tools/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/ld > 311040 /mnt/lfs/tools/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/ld > lfs:~$ ls -i /mnt/lfs/tools/bin/i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ld > 311040 /mnt/lfs/tools/bin/i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ld > > It's identical. Yes, it should be. I don't understand why you can't run the second one (which is on your PATH as user lfs). The 'no such file' message for a file which exists usually means it is linked to a library which cannot be found (in chroot, a build problem), but we've seen it is linked sensibly. > > > > > They should have the same inode number, because they are hardlinks. > [...] > > That is ld on your host. I'm surprised it can handle x86_64. > > Fedora ? Out of interest, are you running a 64-bit kernel with > > 32-bit userspace (and a 32-bit kernel personality), or is it all > > 32-bit ? > > lfs:~$ uname -srvmpio > Linux 3.2.18-pclos1.bfs #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue May 22 04:05:24 CEST 2012 i686 > i686 > i386 GNU/Linux > lfs:~$ cat /etc/pclinuxos-release > PCLinuxOS release 2012 (PCLinuxOS) for i586 > > PCLinuxOS. I have a 64-bit install on another partition. Repositories for the > 2 architectures are separate (of course) ... this is the first time I've > heard > of "a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace (and a 32-bit kernel personality)" > so I am unfamiliar with it but I would guess it is all 32-bit. But I might be > wrong. > From userspace, you can't tell! If you had the option to install a 64-bit kernel (e.g. for more than 4GB of memory) on a nominally 32-bit system, it would probably use it. Not related to the problem, and I'm afraid I'm out of ideas. > > > > ĸen > ^ this is cool. K-k-|< > > Peace and much respect, > Archie Just a matter of keyboard setup (and suitable fonts) :) Sorry I can't crack your problem. You have barely started the build, so please re-read *all* the introductory text, particularly the Host System Requirements (intro, section vii), chapter 4, and chapter 5 up to where you are. All your results, except the error messages, look normal. At this point, some people will suggest starting over. 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
