From: bl8r1...@tut.by
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:12 +0300
To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)!
> I expect every chip has its peculiarities, and my CPUs are not an exception.
>I failed to build LFS-6.8 (if I re
I expect every chip has its peculiarities, and my CPUs are not an exception.
I failed to build LFS-6.8 (if I remember correctly, it was before 7.0 for
sure) with -j2, however all worked fine with -j1.
I haven't tried building in parallel on my later builds though, so maybe I
should.
On the other ha
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 19:43 +0300, Эмиль Кранц wrote:
> By trial and error I have found that any action that takes more than
> one SBU in LFS is better off with -j1.
>
> BLFS packages are more agreeable with -j2 switch.
>
> On my dual core machine only kernel compiles flawlessly with -j2
> switc
14 May 2012 23:05:28 +0100
> > From: zarniwh...@ntlworld.com
> > To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
> > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)!
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:56:10PM +0430, Yasser Zamani wrote:
> > >
>
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:05:28 +0100
> From: zarniwh...@ntlworld.com
> To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)!
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:56:10PM +0430, Yasser Zamani wrote:
> >
> >
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:56:10PM +0430, Yasser Zamani wrote:
>
> Is this failure expected or is a fatal error (and the process could not be
> continued before resolving it)?! Or do you think that eliminating '-j2'
> switch will resolve it (I should know before trying because it's test take 31
Hi,
'make -j2 check' on 'LFS-7.1: 6.37.
Automake-1.11.3
(http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter06/automake.html)'
informs me for one failure with following red message :(
=
1 of 842 tests failed
(96 tests were not run)
See tests/test
