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.)
According to kmod 14's shortlog, ht
# Speed up boot without waiting for settle in udev_retry
#OMIT_UDEV_RETRY_SETTLE=yes
These are there twice.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
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
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 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
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> # Speed up boot without waiting for settle in udev_retry
> #OMIT_UDEV_RETRY_SETTLE=yes
>
> These are there twice.
Good spot. Unfortunately it means we need to update the bootscripts
version. I'll do that later today.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/ma
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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:49:33PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:35:35PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >>
> >> Enable cramfs in the kernel. Also minixfs. Make mtab a file. >> /etc/mtab && touch /etc/mtab)
> >
> > The minix test
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:01:39PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> I've now got to the end of chroot on my i686 system where
> SCSI_DEBUG is NOT set.
And I wondered why my initial backup was taking so long.
I'd left the util-linux directory around after my previous fun and
games on x86_64. Turns
I had a bit of time to look at my logs while the initial backup was
running, plus a build failure when one of the tests failed
unexpectedly, so I've made a note of everything that failed (this is
with a patch for automake, so that didn't fail for me.
This was a "by the book" build in as much as
Ken Moffat wrote:
> What I'm reporting here are the following -
>
> 1. bc - 10 failures, all in a similar style
>
> the first is
>
> Failed:
>index = 97
>val1 = 1338334719204269500461736408706115029076717.4572136445
>val2 = 1338334719204269500461736408706115029076717.45721364460012
My
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:01:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> My result is identical. I think it's internal to the math co-processor
> hw. I've seen this for years. Noted in the book.
>
OK, I was on a series of ttys while I looked at the logs and I
didn't bother to loo
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.
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
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 Thu, 2013-08-22 at 01:13 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:01:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > > 5. texinfo.
> > > FAIL: test_scripts/formatting_unknown_nodes_renamed.sh
> > >
> > > Not sure if Matt's patch fixes this.
> >
> > Don't know, but I
20 matches
Mail list logo
