On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:21 AM, JC Chong wrote:
Has anyone tested this? Or would it be safe to just bump up the host
kernel to 2.6.34?
Thank you for your gracious answers!
Sincerely,
JC C
Yes, by multiple users in the mailing lists, and even I have tested it
a long time ago when updating
On 08/22/2013 04:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> William Harrington wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2013, at 21:49, Bryan Kadzban
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So if the host is running 2.6.28 or something, then entering the
>>> chroot probably isn't going to work when chapter 5's libc was built
>>> with --enable-kerne
William Harrington wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 21:49, Bryan Kadzban
> wrote:
>
>> So if the host is running 2.6.28 or something, then entering the
>> chroot probably isn't going to work when chapter 5's libc was built
>> with --enable-kernel=2.6.34.
>
> The first error will be in ch5 during g
enerated library is expected to support. The higher
> the version number is, the less compatibility code is added, and the faster
> the code gets.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> William Harrington
> ---------- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 21:49, Bryan Kadzban
> wrote:
>
>> So if the host is running 2.6.28 or something, then entering the
>> chroot probably isn't going to work when chapter 5's libc was built
>> with --enable-kernel=2.6.34.
>
> The first error will be in ch5 during
On Aug 21, 2013, at 21:49, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> So if the host is running
> 2.6.28 or something, then entering the chroot probably isn't going to
> work when chapter 5's libc was built with --enable-kernel=2.6.34.
The first error will be in ch5 during gcc pass2 and configure log will report
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:20:43 +0800, JC Chong
> wrote:
>> Another thing, the HSR lists a minimum running 2.6.25 kernel, but
>> building glibc 2.18 needs --enable-kernel=2.6.34. A long time ago,
>> during the LFS 5.1 days, I tried --enable-kernel=2.6.0 with a
>> running 2.
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>> Can give some useful info, anyway, I think, and will be glad to.
>>>
>>> However is it relevant, after Armin's comment?
>>
>> No, I think not, but it would be interesting to check if kmod-14 builds
>> (just though make) using 4.5.3 and 4.6.2
>
> OK. Both logs, below
Em 21-08-2013 11:21, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Em 21-08-2013 10:54, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>>> Armin K. wrote:
host system requirements are just minimum versions of packages needed
for building temporary toolchain. Everything else in the chaper6,
incl
Em 21-08-2013 10:54, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Armin K. wrote:
>>
>> host system requirements are just minimum versions of packages needed
>> for building temporary toolchain. Everything else in the chaper6,
>> including kmod, is built using temporary toolchain (first few packages)
>> and the new too
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 21-08-2013 10:54, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>> Armin K. wrote:
>>>
>>> host system requirements are just minimum versions of packages needed
>>> for building temporary toolchain. Everything else in the chaper6,
>>> including kmod, is built using temporary toolchain (fir
Armin K. wrote:
>
> host system requirements are just minimum versions of packages needed
> for building temporary toolchain. Everything else in the chaper6,
> including kmod, is built using temporary toolchain (first few packages)
> and the new toolchain which should be way newer than the actual h
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:20:43 +0800, JC Chong wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The HSR may need some updating.
>
> Using an LFS 6.6 host with GCC 4.4.x, I wasn't able to build kmod 14, as I
> keep getting: undefined reference to `_Static_assert' errors. kmod 13
> builds just fine though. (LFS 6.6 successfully
JC Chong wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The HSR may need some updating.
>
> Using an LFS 6.6 host with GCC 4.4.x, I wasn't able to build kmod 14, as I
> keep getting: undefined reference to `_Static_assert' errors. kmod 13
> builds just fine though. (LFS 6.6 successfully meets the newest HSR so far.)
>
> Acco
On 08/21/2013 03:20 PM, JC Chong wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The HSR may need some updating.
>
> Using an LFS 6.6 host with GCC 4.4.x, I wasn't able to build kmod 14, as
> I keep getting: undefined reference to `_Static_assert' errors. kmod 13
> builds just fine though. (LFS 6.6 successfully meets the ne
Le 18/12/2012 22:12, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Le 17/12/2012 17:13, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>> By far, the biggest problem is having the wrong symlink for /bin/sh. I
>>> recently highlighted the symlink issue in Section 5.3 of SVN. [...]
>> I have made a great numb
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 17/12/2012 17:13, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> [...]
>> By far, the biggest problem is having the wrong symlink for /bin/sh. I
>> recently highlighted the symlink issue in Section 5.3 of SVN. [...]
> I have made a great number of builds with /bin/sh being a link to dash
>
Le 17/12/2012 17:13, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> [...]
> By far, the biggest problem is having the wrong symlink for /bin/sh. I
> recently highlighted the symlink issue in Section 5.3 of SVN. [...]
I have made a great number of builds with /bin/sh being a link to dash
without any flaw. The two others
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> The ticket would be to take your words "we stay with that until after
> the next LFS release (March) and then re-evaluate" and remember them on
> February/March for the the release. Again, would it be good to open such
> a ticket just to remember?
I would prefer not
--- Em seg, 17/12/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> De: Bruce Dubbs
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] Host System Requirements
> Para: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Data: Segunda-feira, 17 de Dezembro de 2012, 13:49
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> > --- Em seg, 17/12/12, Bruce
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> --- Em seg, 17/12/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>> By far, the biggest problem is having the wrong symlink for
>> /bin/sh. I
>> recently highlighted the symlink issue in Section 5.3 of
>> SVN. I suggest
>> we stay with that until after the next LFS release (March)
>> an
--- Em seg, 17/12/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> De: Bruce Dubbs
> Assunto: Re: [lfs-dev] Host System Requirements
> Para: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Data: Segunda-feira, 17 de Dezembro de 2012, 13:13
> Chris Staub wrote:
> > On 12/17/2012 06:38 AM, Fernando de
Chris Staub wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 06:38 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>
>> I see two modifications, one easy to do, the other is perhaps
>> impossible.
>>
>> 1. Change the position of the gcc, so it is not in the beginning nor the
>> end of the tests.
>> 2. Have a conclusion statement: "x tests
On 12/17/2012 06:38 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
> I see two modifications, one easy to do, the other is perhaps
> impossible.
>
> 1. Change the position of the gcc, so it is not in the beginning nor the
> end of the tests.
> 2. Have a conclusion statement: "x tests passed, y tests failed, if
24 matches
Mail list logo
