ugh even if I did have problems with the menu list
initially. I can't recall the last time I have looked at this or given it
any thought. Perhaps I should take a glance there again as I was ( past
tense ) doing some LFS work earlier this year on PowerPC and had
diligently documented each and e
n.b. : this is a ppc machine
and config.guess reports powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
I am attempting to follow the book and ran into a problem at 5.6.1
"Installation of Glibc". I tried twice with two different apporaches and
both fail in a similar way.
First attempt :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/
CET 2006
GNU Make 3.81
patch 2.5.9
This is perl, v5.8.8 built for powerpc-linux-gnu-thread-multi
GNU sed version 4.1.5
tar (GNU tar) 1.16
-
Dennis Clarke
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Both attempts seem to be failing in similar way.
>>
>> Not sure what direction to take here.
>>
>> Any thoughts ?
>
> Well the CFLAGS thing shouldn't be necessary on powerpc, so your second
> approach was the better one
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 'mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: regular expression compile failed
>>
>> (bad class -- [], [^] or [)
>> /[^
>> mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: syntax error at or near ]
>> mawk: scripts/gen-sorte
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> >> > You really need gawk, not mawk.
>> >>
>> >> Then ple
..
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/lfs/sources/build$ rm -rf foo
It may be reasonable to include a line or two for RISC (PPC/ARM etc) based
people that may get different output from compiling that dummy.c code.
-
Dennis Clarke
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfro
> Loren Foret wrote:
>> More like linux from any distro.
> But I think the point is that some distros now come with, for example,
> dash as the default shell linked to /bin/sh, or as the OP apparently
> found, mawk as the default AWK interpreter. If LFS is to become "more
> than a book", it may be
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Clarke
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:22 PM
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: SVN-20080403 : 5.6.1. Installation of Glibc failure
>
>
>&
>> to "successfully" compile the core LFS system are in the book. For the
>> making of make bison and flex... I would imagine it could be done without
> a
>> version of make already installed but it would probably be a lot of work.
>> I would guess it realy depends on how you start the job. Is thi
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>> No Sir. This is all on PowerPC.
>
> Please take this thread to lfs-support.
Why ?
I don't think this is a support issue at all. More of a "could LFS be more
generic and open to other architectures" sort of thing.
Since leaping
is really about, to me, is
learning and seeing each piece along the journey.
Dennis Clarke
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
I have taken a run at this twice and am not entirely sure if the situation
is acceptable or not.
I build glibc as detailed and then run "make -k check " with output being
dumped via tee into glibc-check-log.
The make -k check ends with these lines :
make[1]: Target `check' not remade because o
> Dennis Clarke wrote these words on 04/18/08 13:11 CST:
>> I have taken a run at this twice and am not entirely sure if the situation
>> is acceptable or not.
>
> I cannot answer that either. You've received more errors than I
> have while building in several differe
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 02:53:27PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > Dennis Clarke wrote these words on 04/18/08 13:11 CST:
>> >> I have taken a run at this twice and am not entirely sure if the
>> situation
>> >> is acceptable or not.
>&g
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> So, bottom line for me is I don't see any errors other than the
>> math/test-double error in a 32bit multilib build. Both the 64bit
>> multilib and regular LFS (not JH branch) don't get any errors.
>
> Not really the bottom line (yet). Dennis is working on a PowerPC arch
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> So, bottom line for me is I don't see any errors other than the
>> math/test-double error in a 32bit multilib build. Both the 64bit
>> multilib and regular LFS (not JH branch) don't get any errors.
>
> Not really the bottom line (yet). Dennis is working on a PowerPC arch
> Dennis Clarke wrote these words on 04/19/08 17:29 CST:
>
>> If anyone has words of encouragement .. now would be a good time :-)
>
> 6 errors out of 42,000 tests ain't sh*t. Drive on, brother. Boot it
> up and see what happens. :-)
Should I be yelling "yeehaw&
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> If anyone has words of encouragement .. now would be a good time :-)
>
> Yeah, what Randy said. :) Anyway, yours is the type of testing, interest
> and feedback we need to keep this project alive and moving forward, so
> keep it coming. I know it&#x
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> If anyone has words of encouragement .. now would be a good time :-)
>
> Yeah, what Randy said. :) Anyway, yours is the type of testing, interest
> and feedback we need to keep this project alive and moving forward, so
> keep it coming. I know it&#x
; forcing myself to sit down and do it. I've been getting side tracked by
> a lot of other things.
Sorry to drop in. I just wanted you to know that I was still out here
working on this little embedded PPC device and that I was getting to
the boot loader issue .. eventually.
Just FYI.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Sorry to drop in. I just wanted you to know that I was still out here
> > working on this little embedded PPC device and that I was getting to
> > the boot
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that the prevailing attitude here is rather anti GRUB2. Mostly
> > because development on it seems to focus on items perceived
/build/linux-2.6.24.4#
The problem is the FreeScale 52XX processor target and I'm looking
into it to see what the issue may be and I'll let you know what I
find.
Dennis Clarke
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See
little overhead required to build
them it would perhaps be best to leave them in the LFS process as is.
Dennis Clarke
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
25 matches
Mail list logo
