On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:55:42 +0100
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 18:20 +0100, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> > (We won't hit the libgcc_s.so problem with Gcc until we start using
> > Gcc-4.7.2)
>
> Hi Andy, I've finally gotten around to looking at t
I hope you are all well.
Glibc-2.16.0 has been released
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.16.0.tar.xz
The good news is that it no longer needs the patches that are in
current LFS. However, there are still some problems with it. Firstly,
the libgcc_s.so issue:
/mnt/lfs/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_
On Tue, 01 May 2012 20:05:54 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> My shiny new LFS system is heading for /dev/null. That's ok, it
> was only a test of current packages, but I must admit I'd hoped to
> keep it for a week or two.
>
> The reason is that although I've built everything except for some
> gnom
Hello All
>From the "that's what you get for touching that" dept:
I've been testing the development versions of gcc and glibc (from svn
and git) and lately I've seen some breakage related to libgcc_s.so.
Current Glibc fails to build with a LD cannot find -lgcc_s error.
Grepping the source for -l
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:14:00 +0100
Okrah Asante wrote:
> hello world,
> i am going throug lfs 7.1 and cannot "make" after configuring glibc 2.15
> with an error : *configure: error: gcc must provide the header.
> *how can solve this problem.
This is the development mailing list, for discussi
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:19:18 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been watching the mailing lists and William Hubbs has been trying
> to get a set of patches into systemd for several days. He is being
> ignored by upstream AFAICT. They have seemed quite arrogant about it in
> the past when they h
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:32:04 +0100
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I have built linux-3.4.1 in five machines. No problems, as with the
> unstable 3.4.0, which required a patch or sed for one of the machines.
>
> One can see in https://www.kernel.org/:
>
> "Latest Stable Kernel:
> Download
>
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:30:29 +0100
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The current headers-install command in the kernel tree is a perl script,
> but there exists a patch to replace it with a very simple shell script
> (and I believe the intent is to submit it upstream). Glibc also requires
> perl for so
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:34:51 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2. but then make dies at
> CC src/shared/libsystemd_units_la-install.lo
> In file included from src/shared/path-lookup.h:33:0,
> from src/shared/install.c:33:
> ./src/core/manager.h:28:23: fatal error: dbus/dbus.h: No
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The current version, Dan's version, and the 'lite' verion all fail the
> same test for me.
I get the same test failure with both pkg-config-0.26 and
pkg-config-lite-0.26-1. With both of them I can make all tests pass if
I configure them --
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:39:59 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I am of the opinion that we should re-introduce pkg-config into LFS. I
> think it would make things simplier for both LFS and BLFS.
>
> pkg-config would make building kmod, libpipeline, man-db, and
> udev/systemd all easier in LFS.
>
>
On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:22:00 +0100
Andrew Benton wrote:
> When they merged udev and systemd they said that it'd be possible to
> install just udev without systemd but with the very first merged
> release it is impossible to install udev without all of systemd's
> depe
On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:49:25 +0100
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Check these out:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pkgconfiglite/
That looks good. It installs /usr/share/aclocal/pkg.m4 which we need.
"This is pkg-config-lite-0.26-1, based on pkg-config-0.26.
pkg-config-lite is based on pkg-confi
On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:03:17 +0100
wrote:
> I've created a patch to systemd-183/{Makefile.am,configure.ac}.
>
> No dbus, pam, tcp-wrappers. Only kmod and blkid needed.
>
> It strips out everything but libudev, udevadmin, and udevd ( now called
> that again), rules, helpers, and tests.
>
> lib
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:38:21 +0100
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Since when does glib require Python?
I think Python's been a required dep since glib-2.32. It may be
possible to build glib without python but it will need more than
configure switches.
> Are you using glib2? IIRC,
> pkg-config up unt
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:51:28 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Did you try in a Chapter 6 environment? I can't get it to work without
> pkg-config.
No, I think your make.sh is a better bet for an LFS Chapter 6 build.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:20:25 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Well Dan, I've run into a problem with autoconf that I can't figure out
> how to solve. configure.ac has several lines like:
>
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES(KMOD, [libkmod >= 5])
>
> Now that's a reasonable check, but requires cfg.m4 which is inst
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:58:00 +0100
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Try this diff for configure.ac.
It helps. I can get through configure Ok, but I can't see a way to get
through make without dbus.
Andy
udev-only.patch
Description: Binary data
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:05:19 +0100
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Here's an update. I forgot that [] are quotes in autoconf, so you
> usually end up using test instead. I still didn't test it works all
> the way, but I think configure should run.
Withthis patch automake fails with:
Makefile.am:1447: Ca
On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:58:08 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Actually, for some of us they *are* scary. I thought I was making
> some progress (persuaded autoreconf to complete without errors using
> the attached -A.patch), but then configure went into an infinite
> loop spewing out '=no' lines. Tha
On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:52:34 +0100
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Now, I see i forgot the patch? Please, find it attached
If you decide to use it (3.4 compiles fine for me BTW), the change
could be made with a sed:
sed -i '/__iommu_table/a\\t"(jiffies|jiffies_64)|"' \
arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:28:11 +0100
Qrux wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > Since you are using Applemail, I think the problem is that it is using \r
> > for
> > newlines instead of \n. I see your mail wrapped, but when replying, it
> > doesn't
> > wrap automat
On Fri, 11 May 2012 00:11:47 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> But looking at upstream git it's already
> fixed in configure.ac:
>
> case $host_cpu in
> i?86*) RESIZECONS_PROGS=yes ;;
> x86_64*) RESIZECONS_PROGS=yes ;;
> *) RESIZECONS_PROGS=no ;;
> esac
>
> There is a patc
Hello All,
There's a rather ill natured thread on LFS Support at the moment called
Chapter 5 questions. Scott Robertson has made an interesting point:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 11:35:32 +0100
Scott Robertson wrote:
>
> But do you not see from a newcomers
> perspective that you seem to use "source d
On Wed, 02 May 2012 01:41:47 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> The downside was that I got one new (to me) test failure in
> iconvdata:
> make[2]: *** [/usr/src/glibc-build/iconvdata/tst-tables.out] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [iconvdata/tests] Error 2
> make[2]: [/usr/src/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error
On Tue, 01 May 2012 23:12:16 +0100
Matt Burgess wrote:
> This is upstream bug 13579
> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13579) and the
> attached patch should fix it. Would you mind giving it a try please?
>
The patch attached to that bug is essentially the same as the one I
a
On Tue, 01 May 2012 20:05:54 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> My shiny new LFS system is heading for /dev/null. That's ok, it
> was only a test of current packages, but I must admit I'd hoped to
> keep it for a week or two.
>
> The reason is that although I've built everything except for some
> gnom
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:38:19 +0100
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 4/23/12 4:33 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > The fix for this is to add
> > --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include to GCC's pass1 and pass2
> > builds so that it doesn't look at /usr/include at all.
>
> For the current build meth
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:41:35 +0100
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> > "...
> > /usr/bin/install -c -m 644
> > ./Documentation/webkitgtk/html/WebKitWebWindowFeatur
> > es.html
> > GENinstall-data-local
> > Running gtkdoc-rebase
> > Rebasing WebKit1 documentation...
> > Traceback (most recent
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:15:11 +0100
Эмиль Кранц wrote:
> Hello all.
> Ncurses configure script during the Temp tools stage (chapter 5.15)
> gives an error, requesting to be complied against gpm. As gpm is
> installed in BLFS, the key "--without-gpm" should be passed to the
> configure script, in a
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:01:51 +0100
Cyril LEVIS wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the test script in part vii should check for "ed" binary. It is
> not installed by default on a debian-testing-amd64-netinst for example
> (like my previous gawk and bison)
Just out of intrest, why should we care if ed is
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:56:23 +
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It looks like glibc-2.15 is about to be released:
>
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.15.tar.xz is in the repository but
> I can't find a release announcement yet.
Patch to use glibc-2.15
Andy
glibc-2.15.patch
Description: Binary
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:46:11 +
wrote:
> This was necessary otherwise make install was trying to creating the
> directory /var/db (for nss) So after checking various Makefile and as a
> probably temporary solution I specifiy
>
> make install_root=/tools install
Another option is to:
sed -
Hello
a simple patch to use gcc-4.7 in the book.
Andy
gcc.patch
Description: Binary data
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Hello,
A recent change in glibc has broken compiling gcc on i686
http://sources.redhat.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=4efeffc1d583597e4f52985b9747269e47b754e2
The solution is to change struct siginfo to siginfo_t
sed -i 's#struct siginfo #siginfo_t #' libgcc/config/*/linux-unwind.h
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:27:34 +
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>Matt and I are very reluctant to change a working implementation.
> From what we can gather, gcc-4.7/glibc-2.15(?) changes things and will
> require some LFS changes. We need to be concentrating on that.
In my experience Jeremy's bui
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:25:32 +
Thierry Nuttens wrote:
> Hello
>
> As every year, I'm giving a try to the next coming version of gcc 4.7.0 which
> should be release very soon. Unfortunately, the pass2 of gcc has making some
> problems because of (I guess) the sed which change the STANDARD_I
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:05:49 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Has anyone else had a chance to try out the build fully and compare? I'm
> waiting to hear more of a consensus from others who have tested it
> before I drop this in, although I'm confident it's sound.
It works for me. I've integrated
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:05:37 +
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> I have libgfortran, libgo, libffi, libjava, libobjc in the source dir!
> Could it be that
> since you do not have those dirs, configure somehow "forgets" to
> disable target-zlib? Have you tried to build
> with the full source of gcc?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:37:30 +
"Gilles Espinasse" wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Benton"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc cross patch in pass1
>
>
> > On Tue,
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:06:33 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> What's your CPU?
andy@eccles:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 30
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 760 @ 2.80GHz
stepping: 5
microcod
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:40:03 +
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm having a problem with why this is happening.
Me too...
> The jhalfs vanilla LFS
> svn build worked perfectly for me.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/033-gcc-pass1
Looking at your log I see:
*** This configuration is
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:02:47 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Here's my log:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1
>
> And the script that generated it:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1.sh
For me, the build fails whilst it's trying to configure the sec
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:02:47 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Here's my log:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1
>
> And the script that generated it:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/033-gcc-pass1.sh
Here are mine:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~andy/033-gcc-pa
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:19:19 +
Andrew Benton wrote:
> checking dynamic linker characteristics... configure: error: Link tests are
> not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
> make[2]: *** [configure-target-zlib] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/sources/gcc-build'
&g
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:24 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:24:27 +0000, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >> I'd like to get to the bottom of the issues you're seeing as they
Hello
FYI, it seems that timezone/zoneinfo data are no longer installed by
glibc (from git). It still installs zic, and the files are still in the
source tree so you can use zic to generate /etc/localtime, however,
more up to date files are available at http://www.iana.org/time-zones
Andy
--
htt
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:17:54 +
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> I've run binutils/gcc-pass1 following Jeremy's patch, with gcc-4.6.3,
> so without --disable-target-*.
>
> It compiles. zlib is compiled in the gcc-build/zlib directory, with the
> host toolchain, then linked to gcc after building gcc.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:36:15 +0000, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > The book fails for me installing glibc, I
> > have to add libc_cv_ctors_header=yes to glibc's configure options. But
> > you knew that, it
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:21 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 3/12/12 7:24 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > I mainly use my current LFS install, I get the same errors if I use a
> > Fedora or Ubuntu live CD.
>
> Which version specifically? If I get a chance, I'll downlo
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:47:51 +
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> OK, sorry,
> I use --disable-target-zlib. Anyway : any library will be supposed to
> run on the target,
> so be compiled with xgcc. As an exception, I think libiberty, if not
> disabled, is compiled
> twice: once to run on the host and
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:47:16 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Yes, when you are cross compiling you (typically) can't bootstrap, so
> they disable the bootstrap if it's determined you are building a cross
> compiler. So where we would normally need the --disable-bootstrap
> switch, we don't here
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:47:18 +
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I must admit to being really confused by your need for these workarounds.
Me too. It makes me feel stupid.
> Is this from your Fedora 16 Live CD? I'm building from a Fedora 16 host
> with all updates from 'yum update' on an x86_64 box
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:19:46 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
> OK, the paragraph above your output stated that it "fails for me at the
> first pass of gcc", hence why I tested against the first pass of GCC.
> That said, I *now* notice that paragraph also states your results are
> from testing JH's new
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:31:41 +
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > I'm still no nearer to figuring out why I get this error. Trying to
> > follow Jeremy's new newlib build method fails for me at the first pass
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:54:44 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 00:39 +0000, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
> > Matt Burgess wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting a
Hello,
I've just changed to shadow-4.1.5 and it's caused me a problem. When I
launch Xorg I do it with a bootscript like this:
user=andy
su - ${user} -c "xinit /etc/X11/xinitrc &> ~/.x-session-errors"
With shadow-4.1.4.3 it worked fine but with shadow-4.1.5 I get an error:
su: Cannot drop the c
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:36:08 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> So it is. Do you want me to change them or do you want to do it?
I'll do it
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:00:38 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> My proposal is to just skip 'arch' completely as I do not believe it is
> not used anywhere in LFS/BLFS.
It is used in several places in BLFS (eg the pages for Liba52, nss and
nspr), but I'm sure uname -m will work just as well.
Andy
--
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:06:11 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm tackling #3002 (upgrading Util-Linux to 2.21). Bruce suggested the
> use of '--enable-new-mount' so that we will use the new libmount based
> version of 'mount'. It's marked as EXPERIMENTAL in configure's help,
> but I'm happ
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:57:01 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Yeah, as I've read more about it it seems like the culprit may be
> libtool, so effectively gcc's build system. What the exact trigger is
> that makes it different on various systems still isn't clear.
>
> So I'll concede that the pat
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:33:46 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > Until you physically removed some
> > things this weekend, my impression was that the xml for old packages
> > always remained in the book, but the packages were commented in
> > general.ent and in whichever xml file
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:41:17 +0100
Ragnar Thomsen wrote:
>
> I would like to add the wicd package to BLFS.
>
> For those of you who do not know it, it is a network connection manager,
> similar to NetworkManager but not as feature rich, and written in python.
>
> It can manage wired and wire
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:37:20 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The patch is good to have as a workaround, but I'd like to find out what
> the issue is that's causing this. I fear it's either a problem with your
> host's compiler or a bug in the GCC build system. Check out:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:49 +
Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> Andy hit issues that were discussed in the thread starting at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2011-March/064617.html
>
> When I have a bit more time, I'll try to build again without the patch,
> and if others could a
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:43:05 -0800
Qrux wrote:
> [~/lfs/src/openssl-1.0.0e] # grep ENGINESDIR $(find . -name "*.c" -o -name
> "*.h")
> ./crypto/engine/eng_list.c: if((load_dir =
> getenv("OPENSSL_ENGINES")) == 0) load_dir = ENGINESDIR;
> ./crypto/opensslconf.h:#define ENGINESDIR "/usr/
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:04:33 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Also, util-linux plans to add GPT support into fdisk in version 2.22.
> That's probably six months away.
Thanks, that's good news.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/fa
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:33:49 -0800
Qrux wrote:
> Back to the unanswered question (2): Andrew, does your machine (pure-64
> build) have the LFS-7.0-release toolchain,
It's more like current LFS svn, there are few packages that are not up
to date in my scripts but not many. With kmod I'm actually
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 04:27:17 -0800
Qrux wrote:
>
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 3:59 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:02:59 -0800
> > Qrux wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think anyone referred to precomp bins. I presume all discussions
> &
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:02:59 -0800
Qrux wrote:
> I don't think anyone referred to precomp bins. I presume all discussions
> here are about source builds.
>
> 1) Which BLFS version?
Current.
> 2) Are you on a 64-bit only platform?
My 64 bit systems are pure x86_64 with everything in /lib.
>
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:15:27 -0800
Qrux wrote:
> As for the "64-bit" works in practice...BIND is an example of a downstream
> app that seems to want to look in /lib64. Whether it's looking for
> ld64.so.1, ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, or something else even, I can't say. I do
> know that it doesn't
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:31:26 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I'll revert the 64-bit stuff and regen the diff.
Sigh...
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:10:28 -0800
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > 5. Since we don't support multilib, remove all toolchain uses of
> > lib64. No need for those symlinks any more. Everything goes to lib.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea.
>
> The 64-bit x86 SysV ABI *REQU
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:49:07 -0500
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Please review and test the actual changes. I'd like to commit this to
> trunk, but I want to hear opinions first. The rendered book is here:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/sysroot/
>
> And a full diff of the changes is here:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:43:11 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'm going to remove it from my working copy of the book and make a test
> run to see if not having it runs into any problems.
>
> I do want to leave it in for 7.1 just because its a minor issue and we
> don't have enough time to test it t
Hello,
I notice that on the BLFS pages for dash and zsh we add them
to /etc/shells so that people can change their shell with chsh
(installed as part of shadow).
However, grepping through LFS for /etc/shells finds
nothing. /etc/shells is not needed until we install shadow so
perhaps we could echo /
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:47:00 +0100
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have done a test of LFS-7.1-rc1. ICA went OK, except the
> already reported problem with ld.so.cache (ldconfig still missing
> somewhere), which is not a big issue. In case somebody else
> does ICA, there is this difference in
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:47:00 +0100
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have done a test of LFS-7.1-rc1. ICA went OK, except the
> already reported problem with ld.so.cache (ldconfig still missing
> somewhere), which is not a big issue. In case somebody else
> does ICA, there is this difference in
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:50:51 +0200
Thanos Baloukas wrote:
> Hello everybody
> I just subscribed on this list. I hope I can help.
>
> The book states python-2.7.2 as required dependency. I'm not sure if the
> INSTALL source tree's file is up to date, but it says nothing about
> python. Except z
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:56:55 -0800
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Looks like Uli broke it again:
>
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=c3a87236702cb73be1dada3438bbd3c3934e83f8
>
> If you remove that "&& defined __USE_GNU" off the end of the #if line, I
> bet it'll work fine.
It may
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:01:30 +0100
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> If I understand the xxx.la files, they are used by libtool to find
> libraries. I am certainly missing something, but I do not understand
> why changing tools to usr in libstdc++.la would give a better
> result. When gmp is built (ie bef
Ok, so I reverted to type and resorted to simple sed hacks to bludgeon
my way forward. This enabled the second pass of gcc to compile and
install into /tools:
sed -i '/::gets/d' libstdc++-v3/include/c_global/cstdio
After that, coreutils, diffutils, gettext, gzip, tar and m4 all needed
variations
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:00:37 +0100
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Looks like the libstdc++.a built during chapter 5 cannot be used...
> Some missing -fPIC during build of libstdc++?
> (-fPIC is indeed used for C++ bindings during the build of gmp)
>
> So, I do not know what to do. Well, does it make a
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:46:24 +0100
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> > Maybe try (supposing the build tree has not been removed):
> >
> > echo '#include' |/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
> > \
> > -B/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/gcc -nostdinc++ \
> > -B/tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:49:37 -0800
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:44:34 -0800 Bryan Kadzban
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Do you get __USE_ISOC11 #define'd (to what value?) or #undef'ed?
> >> What about __cplusplu
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:44:34 -0800
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
> > But according to that bugzilla page, the bug was fixed weeks ago? The
> > 'fix' is definitely in the glibc source so it would appear that it's
> > not working.
>
> I as
Hello,
I've tried to build LFS with current glibc from git (well, current as
of yesterday) and the second pass of gcc (the first one after
installing glibc into /tools) failed like this:
Making all in libsupc++
make[4]: Entering directory
`/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libst
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:28:19 +0100
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe another thing to worry about:
> --
> --- iteration-1/usr/lib/libgmpxx.la
> +++ iteration-2/usr/lib/libgmpxx.la
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> inherited_linker_flags=''
>
> # Librarie
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:47:36 +
Ken Moffat wrote:
> I've no useful comments on the rest of this, but isn't reiser4 more
> or less defunct at the moment? Btrfs seems to be where development
> that will get into the kernel seems to be happening, although I'm
> not sure it's yet ready (e.g. fsc
Hello,
When I'm booting with udev-177 I get a cryptic message output to the
screen in amongst the bootscripts that reads: udevd[120]: No such file
or directory
Is anyone else seeing this? I suspect it may be due to kmod looking for
something that is not present in a monolithic kernel. When I run
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:32:49 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> udev is dropping support of module-init-tools for a new package called
> kmod.
It seems that kmod is required for udev-177:
checking for KMOD... no
configure: error: Package requirements (libkmod >= 3) were not met:
No package 'libkmod'
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:22:45 -0800
Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
> But yes, if you want to do a modules-only build you do need to rebuild the
> initramfs when you change kernels. Or at least the /lib/modules bit of it. My
> point was just that, since the current direct-boot method is "you must be
>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:32:49 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> There appears appears to be a movement to consolidate /bin and /usr/bin,
> /lib and /usr/lib, and /sbin and /usr/sbin.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I like this. I've started doing it on my systems. /bin, /lib and /s
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:07:42 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Be careful. There are a lot of packages that need libpng. At least
> qt3, firefox, seamonkey, thunderbird, and gimp have patches for libpng-1.5.
>
> Since it's only a point release, they are probably OK, but they should
> be checked.
I
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:23:59 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just a reminder that we did at one time adopt a patch naming convention:
>
> pkgname dash version dash short underscore descriptive underscore name
> dash patchrev3.patch
>
> That is, the name should be:
>
> thunderbird-9.0.1-libpng_1.5-
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:15:19 +0100
Olaf wrote:
> FWIW: libnl-3.2.3 proved quite an interesting 'change', I've needed to
> tweak several packages (hostapd to name one) to deal with the move of
> header files :-(
Could you tell me how you built hostapd with libnl-3.2.3? I've just
taken the easy
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:31:31 -0500
Walter Webb wrote:
> The blfs book for 2012-01-03 (I also checked 2012-01-07) has a patch
> for firefox-9.0.1. The compile failed with the patch, and succeeded
> without the patch. In the patch itself it says:
> Description: Fixes compiling firefox-9.0 wit
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:20:09 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think the arch command is a bit more than uname -m. See
> http://www.manpagez.com/man/1/arch/
That link is to the BSD man page. It may be a bit more than uname -m on
BSD but for us the version we currently install doesn't accept any
opt
Hello,
>From the trivial detail department; we configure util-linux
with --enable-arch, however, on the man page for arch I see:
DESCRIPTION
arch is a deprecated command since util-linux 2.13. Use uname -m or
use arch from the GNU coreutils package.
Coreutils can install arch i
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:56:39 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I think that idea is fine, but wonder about the use of awk. It may not
> be available.
The book requires awk.
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the ab
1 - 100 of 386 matches
Mail list logo
