Hi all,
Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
This can be approached in one of two ways:
1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
be needed to be built before GCC pass1 as GMP is built inside
the GCC Pass1 instructions.
2. Add it to the Host Requirem
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
> This can be approached in one of two ways:
>
> 1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
> be needed to be built before GCC pass1 as GMP is built inside
> the GCC Pass1 instructions.
>
>
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:15:43 +0200, Randy McMurchy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
> This can be approached in one of two ways:
>
> 1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
> be needed to be built before
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
> This can be approached in one of two ways:
>
> 1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
> be needed to be built before GCC pass1 as GMP is built inside
> the GCC Pass1 instruc
Hello,
I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble
spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.
I'm just curious, what was the rationale behind building gmp and mpfr in
different manners within the same book? To be more specific, why let
GC
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:17:01 +0200, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just curious, what was the rationale behind building gmp and mpfr in
> different manners within the same book? To be more specific, why let
> GCC build them internally for its own use on GCC pass1 and then bui
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If we can build it in LFS without additional host support, then we should do
> that. Just moving the order of builds would be preferable to a new host
> requirement, even if we need to add M4 to chapter 5.
It is not "if" we need to add it to Chapter 5. It is required
by GM
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Best I can tell the GMP package needs M4 to build successfully.
> This can be approached in one of two ways:
>
> 1. Build M4 before building GMP in Chapter 5 (in fact it may
> be needed to be built before GCC pass1 as GMP is built inside
> the GCC Pass1 instruc
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble
> spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.
I'm not sure it was ever discussed. DJ went out on his own and
built a version of the book that we've since sort of adopted as
t
Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
Hmmm. I read through that thread already, but I didn't
Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
Yes, that brings back things I remember. Thanks, Phil
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I believe most of the information he has was determined by
> seeing what was going on over at DIY. I know that they discussed
> it a bit over there. You may want to check the DIY archives.
Well, DIY lets GCC build them internally on all passes. When I posted, I
was already
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> * GCC has a mechanism built in to build them and use them the way it
> needs to. If we would just let it build them, then there's that much
> less possibility of breakage due to misconfiguration.
>
> * I don't know if I particularly want to have two extra libs insta
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
>> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
>> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
>> to locate these programs in the /tools direc
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:51:15 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, in Chapter 6 I know I wouldn't like to see statically
> linked GMP and MPFR in GCC as I build them later on and it seems
> silly to have a package statically linked in GCC and all other
> packages link dynamica
Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> * Only GCC needs them.
>
> Just for the record, I know guile can use an external libgmp:
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=blob;f=configure.in;h=e67e1d84;hb=HEAD#l820
>
> Google shows that clamav and openswan use it, too. I don't know if
> that's comp
> Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
>> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
>> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
>> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
>
> Hmmm. I read through that thread already, but
Hi Bruce,
On Sun, Oct 05, at 12:49 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> That seems reasonable.It
> would not be hard to branch a 6.3.1 from 6.3 and commit changes to that as
> appropriate. I'm not sure what the release procedures should be. Do we do
> a
> -rc1, etc for a minor errata change? I am thin
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Just for the record, I know guile can use an external libgmp:
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=blob;f=configure.in;h=e67e1d84;hb=HEAD#l820
>
> Google shows that clamav and openswan use it, too. I don't know if
> that's compelling enough, but I thought
Greg Schafer wrote:
> This Perl version includes s static version of Zlib. Better to link
> against the system Zlib? I think so.
I would as well had I known. Thanks for the tip. I'll look into
it.
> The above post also refers to a test failure in the Syslog module. You're
> not seeing that?
No
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Not sure why you're seeing it. In fact I had 0 (zero) failures on my
> testsuite run. :-)
>
> ext/Sys/Syslog/t/00-load..ok
> ext/Sys/Syslog/t/constantsok
> ext/Sys/Syslog/t/syslog..
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble
> spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.
>
> I'm just curious, what was the rationale behind building gmp and mpfr in
> different manners within the same boo
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
> inline beyond that point, because that fixed the problem
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
>> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
>> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
>> inline beyond that poin
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Noted in DJ's book (I'll continue to refer to it as that
>> even though his book is what will be SVN, he's the one
>> that got all this stuff going) that we've dropped the
>> i18n patch for Coreutils. IIRC, upstream won't touch it,
>> an
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>
>>> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
>>> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
>>> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
>>>
>>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>>
I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
inline beyond that point, because that f
Steve Crosby wrote:
> So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
> or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
> prefer.
After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this is the
way to go. Build GMP and MPFR inline with GCC (static) in
Chap
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:
> I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be
> slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
>
> We already have bison as a host req. Bison depends on m4, so most
> distros I know will have m4 installed as a dependency
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
>> or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
>> prefer.
>
> After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this is the
> way to go. Build GMP and MP
On Monday October 6 2008 08:50:08 pm Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
> > So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
> > or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
> > prefer.
>
> After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 10/06/08 10:45 CST:
>
>
>> I would think that adding it to the Host Requirements page would be
>> slightly preferable. Here's my thinking:
>>
>> We already have bison as a host req. Bison depends on m4, so most
>> distros I know will
Hello. From what I can see, we can use:
-Dlibc=/tools/lib/libc-2.8.so -Ulocincpth -Uloclibpth \
-Dglibpth="/tools/lib" -Dusrinc="/tools/include"
instead of the Perl libc patch.
Is LFS interested in this (one less patch)? Someone needs to verify that this
has identical results compared t
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> I have added a new milestone, 6.4, for the current effort.
>>>
>
>
>> Yeah, actually. 6.4 sounds good to me.
>>
>
> OK, I have fleshed out the description of 6.4 and 7.0.
>
> http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/
DJ Lucas wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Noted in DJ's book (I'll continue to refer to it as that
>>> even though his book is what will be SVN, he's the one
>>> that got all this stuff going) that we've dropped the
>>> i18n patch for Coreutil
35 matches
Mail list logo
