Hi,
> I see this before, but already forgot how I overcome it.
I'm puzzled, to be honest.
> Ensure that dynamic loader is visible as /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 from
> chroot (this message is produced when dynamic loader cannot be found).
It is, as far as I can ensure, I even added /lib and /tools
> It's "provided" by the kernel, though, I think. I get the same output
> from ldd, and my system works.
Yes, the 2.6.x kernel uses this gate for 64bit kernel space with 32 bit user
space translations of syscalls.
>>The $LFS was built with a SuSE 9.3 host system, maybe this is an
>>issue.
>
>
Hi, all!
I've passed through roadmap in the wiki. Some comments on the following line:
* make (no known compatible alternatives, any issues with 3.80?)
There is actually one problem with make-3.80. I've pointed it out
about a year ago during LFS-6.0 test phase. Read more here:
http://archives.
Hai Zaar wrote:
Hi, all!
I've passed through roadmap in the wiki. Some comments on the following line:
* make (no known compatible alternatives, any issues with 3.80?)
There is actually one problem with make-3.80. I've pointed it out
about a year ago during LFS-6.0 test phase. Read more here
Being unable to build LFS6.1 on my FC4 system because of the gcc4
problem, I installed a minimal ubuntu distribution.
When I tried building binutils, I ran into the problem of the
nonexistence of "yyparse." I had to hunt around on the web a bit, and
I finally found somebody who had the same probl
Kim McCall wrote:
When I tried building binutils, I ran into the problem of the
nonexistence of "yyparse." I had to hunt around on the web a bit, and
I finally found somebody who had the same problem and said it was
solved by installing bison and flex. I installed these, and
everything went fi
On 7/6/05, Kim McCall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that there ought to be some kind of documentation of what development
> tools are required in order to build LFS.
>
There already are: from the binutils page
Installation depends on: Bash, Bison, Coreutils, Diffutils, Flex, GCC,
Gettext, Glib
On 7/6/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> system requirements in the prologue. Hmm, the first paragraph on
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1-pre1/chapter01/chapter01.html#ch-scatter-how
> states that one must choose the "development" option of your host
> distribution.
Roberto Nibali wrote:
>> It's "provided" by the kernel, though, I think. I get the same
>> output from ldd, and my system works.
>
> Yes, the 2.6.x kernel uses this gate for 64bit kernel space with 32
> bit user space translations of syscalls.
It's not for 64-bit kernels only. It's used for all
Dear List,
... confusion worse confounded:
as has been suggested, the problem is locale-related,
and now does not seem to have anything to do with
the glibc version (hurrah!). The remarks previously
posted to the list suggest that it is indeed a gawk-3.1.4
bug.
en_GB is all right
en
Dear List,
I present a few nits I have picked out of the
hair of blfs-6.1-pre1 (the book):
I've decided to send this collection as it is rather than wait for
"completion". I dare say I will find others later.
6.58.1
"compliment" should be "complement"
Preface.2 (gosh, a pre
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Bernard Leak wrote:
> Dear List,
> I present a few nits I have picked out of the
> hair of blfs-6.1-pre1 (the book):
LFS, not blfs.
> The word is "programme". Yes, it really is, unless you
> are writing American. It is a curiosity of the LFS book
>
Bernard Leak wrote:
For the rest of us:
"Program" is merely an American (mis-)spelling,
adopted by people who failed to know better.
Careful. Your words here could very easily be taken as offensive.
And for what its worth, the *entire* English language is full of holes
and ignoran
Ken Moffat wrote:
And if push comes to shove, I assume Canadian usage will be the
preferred model ;)
Eh! :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> And if push comes to shove, I assume Canadian usage will be the
> preferred model ;)
Yay! :) BTW, Happy Canada Day to those Canadians on here. ;) (Sure I'm
about 5 days late saying it on here, but I had a HECK of a good time on the
first!)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mail
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > And if push comes to shove, I assume Canadian usage will be the
> > preferred model ;)
>
> Eh! :)
>
Well, it's Gerard's project.
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/li
The pseudo random patch for 2.6.12 that's up on the patches site doesn't
apply cleanly to 2.6.12.2.
Is there anyone uploading a fix soon ?
Alan.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Is there a problem with trying to compile using the latest gcc,
distributed with FC4? (I guess I missed the memo).
This is just a thought and not something I've tried, but FC4 provides
gcc 3.2 in the package compat-gcc32. It installs it as /usr/bin/gcc32 I
believe. You could use that with th
David Jensen wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
>> I think so too. IMO it was changed inadvertently because of the name
>> change. In the mean time we can use the configure option
>> --with-pc-path="/usr/lib/pkg-config:/usr/lib/pkgconfig" to overcome
>> the problem.
>>
>>
>>
> I can't believe I
Bernard Leak wrote:
Dear List,
I present a few nits I have picked out of the
hair of blfs-6.1-pre1 (the book):
I've decided to send this collection as it is rather than wait for
"completion". I dare say I will find others later.
I hope not...we've just been through a pretty thorough re
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:45:39PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> >Preface.7 refers to
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/errata-6.1-pre1/
> > which seems not to exist (!)
>
> This was actually fixed yesterday. Today's render should correct it.
If he is reading the pre1
We may have to stop the presses. Zlib has a DoS vulnerability. I'm
looking for info now.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: ht
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
On the other hand, maybe this would be worth a shot. Try running
something like the following:
/tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tools/bin/env -i
and see if you still get the same error, or a different error, or no
error at all.
The readelf test just makes sure that the program
Hi,
I'm in a hurry, will be back on Monday.
> /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tools/bin/env -i
>
> and see if you still get the same error, or a different error, or no
> error at all.
# /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tools/bin/env -i
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/tools/bin /tools/bin/bash --login +
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 05:45:39PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
This was actually fixed yesterday. Today's render should correct it.
If he is reading the pre1, then no it shouldn't. The pre-1 isn't being
edited. Changes are going to branch and branch is still using "testing".
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> I know it is (despite English teachers in England having taught me
> otherwise), you know it is, but unlike you, I prefer to avoid such
> antagonistic comments :)
But where would be the humor in that? :)
--
Archaic
Want con
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Can't we just keep the current version until a new release that
doesn't contain the bastardized name is released?
Is there any great compelling reason to update to a *broken*
package?
There was a small bug fix, a missing else. it could be added to 0.18 with:
sed -i 's:
I'm building LFS 6.1 pre 1 using Ubuntu as the host system.
Everything has gone well up through the early parts of Chapter 6.
I've built glibc and then run
# make check
It aborted most of the way through, and the last output file it seemed
to have written was /sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-timer4.o
Just wondering... I'm going through the SVN-20050705 book, and I notice
that it's still got binutils 2.16 in it... There's 2.16.1 out, and I've
successfully compiled it instead of 2.16 (I'm at chapter 6.14 now)... Any
reasons that we shouldn't be using 2.16.1? :)
Dave
--
http://linux
David Fix wrote:
Just wondering... I'm going through the SVN-20050705 book, and I notice
that it's still got binutils 2.16
Well, it did up until 07:26 (UTC) today :) I upgraded it this morning,
it should show up in tomorrows render.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/l
> We may have to stop the presses. Zlib has a DoS vulnerability. I'm
> looking for info now.
>
> --
> Archaic
A new one? Affecting v1.2.2? Where did you read about this? I can't find
anything about it! :) Not that I disbelieve you, I just want to read about
it myself! :)
Dave
--
> Well, it did up until 07:26 (UTC) today :) I upgraded it
> this morning,
> it should show up in tomorrows render.
*laugh* Perfect. :) Thanks Matt. :) Just thought I'd point that out.
;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscr
A possible buffer overflow exploit was discovered in zlib. This includes
web browsers or email programs able to view PNG images (which are
compressed by zlib). The most likely scenario is a Denial of Service by
crashing the program that is linked to zlib. However, a possibility of
priviledge escala
> A possible buffer overflow exploit was discovered in zlib.
> --
> Archaic
Thanks for the link and the patch, Archaic. :) Much appreciated. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informat
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:36:49PM -0400, David Fix wrote:
>
> A new one? Affecting v1.2.2? Where did you read about this? I can't find
> anything about it! :) Not that I disbelieve you, I just want to read about
> it myself! :)
Subscribe to bugtraq if you want to keep up on vulnerabilities
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:29:26PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
>
> Subscribe to bugtraq if you want to keep up on vulnerabilities and such.
> There are many others, also.
Err, that could easily be misread. There are many other security lists.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from you
Hey guys...
I'm running through SVN-20050705, and I notice that on 6.14 (GCC 3.4.4), it
says to run the tests (make check)... However, in chapter 5, it mentions
that you don't HAVE to run the tests in chapter 5, but gives details on the
test suite notes... In chapter 6, where the tests are prett
David Fix wrote:
Hey guys...
I'm running through SVN-20050705, and I notice that on 6.14 (GCC 3.4.4), it
says to run the tests (make check)... However, in chapter 5, it mentions
that you don't HAVE to run the tests in chapter 5, but gives details on the
test suite notes... In chapter 6, where
Hey guys,
Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11. GCC-3.4.4 - Pass
2...
There's this line:
Results can be compared with those located at
http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/.
However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different
mirrors. :)
> Here's another one for SVN-20050705, SVN-20050705 - 5.11.
> GCC-3.4.4 - Pass
> 2...
>
> There's this line:
> Results can be compared with those located at
> http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/svn/.
>
> However, that gives me a 404. :) I also tried it on a few different
> mirro
David Fix wrote:
You can find this same error in the testing book (TESTING-20050705), with
the following URL (for GCC-3.4.3, of course):
http://beta.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/testing/
This is a website issue - will be fixed later today.
Thanks
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/
> This is a website issue - will be fixed later today.
>
> Thanks
Whoops! :) Thanks! I'm sorry, I'd sent those to the wrong list. :) As an
aside, what ARE the correct URLs? ;)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Un
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of
LFS 6.1-pre2. This pre-release for the upcoming final 6.1 revision of
the book includes a patch to fix a recently disclosed security bug in zlib.
You can read the book online at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1-pr
In Linux From Scratch, Version 6.1-pre2, Table of Contents, Preface,
Host System Requirements located at:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1-pre2/prologue/hostreqs.html
I found the following errors:
In the first paragraph the word "First" is used and is followed by
"Secondly." "Second
DJ Lucas wrote:
mountkernfs script succeeds, however it leaves behind messages (merged)
when sh is a symlink to ash. '&>' does not redirect. Suggest '2>&1>'.
Also, I'm not sure what version of hotplug right this second, but the
math early on in the following files is also broken with ash symli
I hope this isn't too nit picky:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1-pre2/prologue/typography.html
1.
"This form of text is used for several purposes in the book, mainly to
emphasize important points or items."
Should not be a comma splice and should instead be:
"This form of text is u
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> mountkernfs script succeeds, however it leaves behind messages (merged)
>> when sh is a symlink to ash. '&>' does not redirect. Suggest '2>&1>'.
>> Also, I'm not sure what version of hotplug right this second, but the
>> math early on in the f
DJ Lucas wrote:
Yes, I had thought about suggesting that, however held it for a few
reasons, the most important is that we don't install ash in LFS.
Not breaking BLFS is IMHO more important.
Also with hotplug-ng coming...
Forget about hotplug-ng. It's already dead, to be replaced with the
Hi guys,
good work so far ..
Well I think you should wait one more week and
include the latest kernel 2.6.12 and headers
available now. Also you may include
binutils 2.16.1 as it is already in svn and gcc 3.4.4
This would be a good step for final 6.1
cYa Bernd
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Bes
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:03:05AM +0200, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
>
> This would be a good step for final 6.1
No it would be a terrible step. One week isn't possibly long enough to
test such drastic changes. We are trying to produce a "stable" book and
while those updates you mentioned may produce
50 matches
Mail list logo
