1. Inetutils won't compile, but I found a patch here -
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&postid=1750252#post1750252
2. GRUB testsuite doesn't complain about "ufs2_stage1_5" being "too big".
3. The patches needed to compile glibc and tar with gcc4 are listed in
Chapter 5
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:17:59AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> 4. The kernel notes describing the recommended compiler need to be
> updated, since they no longer make any sense ("NPTL requires the kernel
> to be compiled with GCC-3.x, in this case 4.0.1.").
Heh. The beauty of entities. :)
--
Hi all,
I'm rebuilding Flex with the -3 patch as this patch was put into the
final LFS-6.1 very late. My test 6.1 build was using the -2 patch. I
want to check this patched version of Flex with the Doxygen build to
see if the Flex hack is still required.
Upon installation of Flex and looking at t
On 7/19/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I would like to propose the following additional defines to xorg (and
> xfree86?).
>
> #define ProjectRoot $PREFIX /* For folks who don't want to install X
> in /usr/X11R6 */
> #define FontDir /usr/share/fonts /* Default dir searc
Chris Staub wrote:
1. Inetutils won't compile, but I found a patch here -
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&postid=1750252#post1750252
That would be because I've not gotten around to building chapter 6 yet
(see
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-Ju
Ok, maybe you can help with this, then: I'm stuck at 5.4.1 building
the gcc 4.0.1, pass 1. My problems may be related to the fact that
I'm in the process of making a x86-64 bit LFS, following
http://home.ix.netcom.com/~ejohns/glfs-amd64/temp.html.
Everything has worked up until now, I'm running th
The new fixincludes adjustments in chapter 5 don't work!
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR} -xtype d -exec rm -rf \{} \; &&
deletes all directories under and including
$GCC_INCLUDEDIR! It should be changed to:
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/* -xtype d -exec rm -rf \{} \; &&
Secondly, the GCC pass 2 testsuite will
I wrote:
> The new fixincludes adjustments in chapter 5 don't work!
>
> find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR} -xtype d -exec rm -rf \{} \; &&
>
> deletes all directories under and including
> $GCC_INCLUDEDIR! It should be changed to:
>
> find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/* -xtype d -exec rm -rf \{} \; &&
>
Also, GCC_
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Upon installation of Flex and looking at the text in the LFS-6.1 book,
I noticed there is supposed to be a flex++ program (symlink) installed.
Ouch! Looks like that symlink hasn't been there since we moved from
flex-2.5.4a (neither an unpatched 2.5.31 or 2.5.27 install
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
The new fixincludes adjustments in chapter 5 don't work!
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR} -xtype d -exec rm -rf \{} \; &&
deletes all directories under and including
$GCC_INCLUDEDIR! It should be changed to:
find ${GCC_INCLUDEDIR}/* -xtype d -exec rm -rf \{} \; &&
Erm, whoops!
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 07/19/05 15:04 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>Upon installation of Flex and looking at the text in the LFS-6.1 book,
>>I noticed there is supposed to be a flex++ program (symlink) installed.
>
> Ouch! Looks like that symlink hasn't been there since we moved
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I noticed it isn't installed, yet the book says it is.
OK, it's gone now!
BTW, the Doxygen package still requires the Flex hack in order to
build the doxywizard program. It's no big deal, I just wanted to
ensure that the new -3 patch didn't do something new to make the
h
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
...
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/config/host-linux.c: In function
`linux_gt_pch_use_address':
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/config/host-linux.c:202: `SSIZE_MAX' undeclared
(first use in this function)
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/config/host-linux.c:202: (Each undeclared identifier
is reported o
On 7/19/05, Joseph Felps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/19/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > I would like to propose the following additional defines to xorg (and
> > xfree86?).
> >
> > #define ProjectRoot $PREFIX /* For folks who don't want to install X
> > in /us
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
The "make bootstrap" stops with these messages...
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/config/host-linux.c: In function
`linux_gt_pch_use_address':
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/config/host-linux.c:202: `SSIZE_MAX' undeclared
(first use in this function)
../../gcc-4.0.1/gcc/config/host-linux.c:
Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/19/05 00:11 CST:
> I would like to propose the following additional defines to xorg (and
> xfree86?).
>
> #define ProjectRoot $PREFIX /* For folks who don't want to install X
> in /usr/X11R6 */
> #define FontDir /usr/share/fonts /* Default dir searched by
Hi Tush,
You wrote:
> FontDir is set to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts and DocDir is set to
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc.
Ahh...
I can see your point. However, my personal preference is that
for packages that install to a personalized location, such as
packages installed in /opt/whatever, I like everythi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
...
Are you still seeing this following instructions in Monday's/today's book?
I'm using this:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/GCC4-20050718/chapter05/glibc.html
so I guess yes, unless there is some "one day lag" wrt. book rendering...
But as mentioned, I think
Still more problems with the gcc4 system, here. Now it's glibc. Following
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/GCC4-20050718/chapter05/glibc.html
to the letter, I get the messages
In file included from include/tls.h:6,
from sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/sysdep.h:26,
On Mit, 2005-07-20 at 00:06 +0200, Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
> A quick 'find' tells me that there is a prctl.h defining ARCH_SET_FS
> in /usr/src/linux-2.6.12.2/include/asm-x86_64, but is this supposed to
> be included by the glibc?!?! (Pasting in the definition of ARCH_SET_FS
Haven't you copied as
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Having said that, does anyone know for definite whether anything in LFS
requires flex anymore, now that we're using FSF binutils again? Playing
devil's advocate here, maybe we could kick this package over the fence
to BLFS and let you guys deal with the pain it causes? :
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Having said that, does anyone know for definite whether anything in
LFS requires flex anymore, now that we're using FSF binutils again?
Playing devil's advocate here, maybe we could kick this package over
the fence to BLFS and let you guys deal
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/19/05 17:56 CST:
> I remembered everyone getting upset at me. "Flex is needed for a
> functional system is what I was told."
I don't remember anyone getting upset. I do remember folks providing
arguments why it shouldn't be removed from LFS.
Disagreeing with
On 7/19/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having said that, does anyone know for definite whether anything in LFS
> requires flex anymore, now that we're using FSF binutils again?
> Playing devil's advocate here, maybe we could kick this package over the
> fence to BLFS and let you
Hi,
I installed gcc3.2 in fedora core 4 over gcc4.0..
Gcc 3.2 is installed in /home/xx/yy directory.
when I do make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="execute.exp"
I get
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020307-2.c exe
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020307-2.c exe
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020307-2.c exe
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:14:47PM -0700, tina raj wrote:
>
> can someone help me out
Please post to lfs-support.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailm
Jürg Billeter wrote:
...
Haven't you copied asm-x86_64 to /tools/include/asm?
...
Ouch. Absolutely right. That was the missing piece,
thanks.
After that it worked much better. (Though, I had to
replace <...> with "..." for the #include in
glibc-2.3.5/sysdeps/generic/wcstoul_l.c. Don't know
why
27 matches
Mail list logo
