Randy McMurchy wrote:
It's my opinion that the current SVN (20050303) is rock solid and
worthy of a release. I have a couple systems running it,
ditto. (but without sysvinit/syslog-ng/LFS-bootscripts, of course)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc
Randy McMurchy wrote:
It's my opinion that the current SVN (20050303) is rock solid and
worthy of a release. I have a couple systems running it, without
problems or issues that I've seen. Additionally, Anduin is running
on a very similar platform (just a few packages are not up to the
current revs
Steve Crosby wrote these words on 03/07/05 23:09 CST:
> Bug 1061 created with suggested text (compiling binutils\gcc shared) - note
> that I haven't the experience with the toolchain to indicate if this is a
> "correct" fix, and since it's a toolchains issue, will need some serious
> brainpower
Jeremy Utley wrote these words on 03/09/05 00:51 CST:
> I don't see why not, but IMHO, it's far easier to just build the Pass1's
> dynamic instead of static - it sidesteps libc.a completely (uses libc.so
> instead), and definately works - I've used that process myself when
> building from jhuntwor
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/09/05 17:36 CST:
> My suggestion/preference is to do a quick 6.0.1 and release it this
> week. The only change is either one package version or some minor
> instruction changes. No change in gcc, glibc, or any other nice to have
> packages. Just the minimal nee
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The only change is either one package version or some minor instruction
> changes.
Or even better, no version changes, only minimal patches to fix known
problems.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscra
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> No change in gcc, glibc, or any other nice to have packages.
> Just the minimal needed to do 6.0 so that it does not require future
> upgrades to use workarounds.
Then you also want to fix the pthread.h problem in glibc (mutexes are
unusable directly in C++ apps, e.g. fltk fa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I see. Under the circumstances, would it be appropriate to release
a LFS 6.0.1 to fix the problem? It sounds like it would only take a
package update for binutils and perhaps a note.
Or perhaps just removing the LDFLAGS="-all-static" flag and associated
comment?
--
> OK. I see. Under the circumstances, would it be appropriate to release
> a LFS 6.0.1 to fix the problem? It sounds like it would only take a
> package update for binutils and perhaps a note.
>
> Or perhaps just removing the LDFLAGS="-all-static" flag and associated
> comment?
>
>-- Bruce
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:45:13 -0800
Jeremy Utley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> >
> > What if binutils were just rebuilt using the same package, but leave
> > the libraries unstripped?
> >
> Because the problem is actually if libc.a has been stripped with buggy
> binutils, r
Jeremy Utley wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
Would it be possible to
download an unstripped LFS 6.0 version of libc.a and continue?
I don't see why not, but IMHO, it's far easier to just build the Pass1's
dynamic instead of static - it sidesteps libc.a completely (uses libc.so
instead), and definat
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Jeremy Utley wrote:
Because the problem is actually if libc.a has been stripped with
buggy binutils, removing the TLS information from the library. The
only resolution would be to completely recompile Glibc.
I see. It's glibc that get corrupted. Would it be possible to
dow
Jeremy Utley wrote:
Because the problem is actually if libc.a has been stripped with buggy
binutils, removing the TLS information from the library. The only
resolution would be to completely recompile Glibc.
I see. It's glibc that get corrupted. Would it be possible to download
an unstripped
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
What if binutils were just rebuilt using the same package, but leave
the libraries unstripped?
Because the problem is actually if libc.a has been stripped with buggy
binutils, removing the TLS information from the library. The only
resolution would be to completely recompile
Steve Crosby wrote:
"Robert R. Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Why is stripping the host binaries the issue?
1. There was a bug in binutils 2.15.92.0.1 and earler that caused the strip
command to drop TLS symbols from static libraries. This was fixed in
2.15.92.0.2
2. There was *also* a b
Steve Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> "Robert R. Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:d0lq7l$ht0$1 @belgarath.linuxfromscratch.org:
>
>>
>> Why is stripping the host binaries the issue?
>> My Febuary 22, 2005 rebuild of Gentoo 2004.3-unstable had absolutely
"Robert R. Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:d0lq7l$ht0$1
@belgarath.linuxfromscratch.org:
>
> Why is stripping the host binaries the issue?
> My Febuary 22, 2005 rebuild of Gentoo 2004.3-unstable had absolutely no
> issues with any of the LFS-BOOK-SVN-20050228-HTML chapter 5 packages
Randy McMurchy wrote:
When using an LFS-6.0 host, with stripped binaries, the last step
in the chapter 5 Binutils instructions (rebuilding the ld
subdirectory) in the current SVN book will fail.
This is a known issue.
Two things:
1. Shouldn't this be explained in BIG BOLD text somewhere in the
prer
Steve Crosby wrote these words on 03/07/05 23:09 CST:
> Bug 1061 created with suggested text (compiling binutils\gcc shared) - note
> that I haven't the experience with the toolchain to indicate if this is a
> "correct" fix, and since it's a toolchains issue, will need some serious
> brainpower
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:19:35PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> All three of the suggestions above are not just a trivial matter.
> I think it really sucks that one can't use the most recent prior
> version of LFS as a host to build the current version.
>From what I can tell, the problem go b
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Steve Crosby wrote these words on 03/07/05 20:12 CST:
>
>> 1. build the initial binutils and gcc in chapter 5 using dynamic
>> libs, rather than static (this avoids the stripped libc.a issue).
>>
>> 2. use binutils prior to 2
Steve Crosby wrote these words on 03/07/05 20:12 CST:
> 1. build the initial binutils and gcc in chapter 5 using dynamic libs,
> rather than static (this avoids the stripped libc.a issue).
>
> 2. use binutils prior to 2.15.91.0.2 in the initial chapter 5 (this results
> in binutils ignoring the
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:b19vf2-uq1.ln1
@rmlscsi.mcmurchy.prv:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/07/05 18:10 CST:
>> When using an LFS-6.0 host, with stripped binaries, the last step
>> in the chapter 5 Binutils instructions (rebuilding the ld
>> subdirectory) in the
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/07/05 18:10 CST:
> When using an LFS-6.0 host, with stripped binaries, the last step
> in the chapter 5 Binutils instructions (rebuilding the ld
> subdirectory) in the current SVN book will fail.
>
> This is a known issue.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. Shouldn't t
When using an LFS-6.0 host, with stripped binaries, the last step
in the chapter 5 Binutils instructions (rebuilding the ld
subdirectory) in the current SVN book will fail.
This is a known issue.
Two things:
1. Shouldn't this be explained in BIG BOLD text somewhere in the
prerequisites? With som
25 matches
Mail list logo
