Mykal Funk wrote:
> Thanks a bunch, Ken. I got a kernerl working! Now to build the LFS 6.5
> and see how everything goes. If it all goes well, I can go back to
> lurking. :)
But first, be sure to keep us informed on how things all come out!
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2009/12/7 Mykal Funk :
>
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=y ? If so, try turning it off.
>>>
> whoops, if not try turning it on.
>
>>> I'm not sure where it appears in menuconfig, but the help says:
>>>
>>> config COMPAT_VDSO
>>>
2009/12/7 Mykal Funk :
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>
>> Do you have CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=y ? If so, try turning it off.
whoops, if not try turning it on.
>> I'm not sure where it appears in menuconfig, but the help says:
>>
>> config COMPAT_VDSO
>> def_bool y
>> prompt "Compat VDSO suppor
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2009/12/7 Mykal Funk :
>
>> Thanks for the pointers. Once I got the configuration right it would go
>> all the way to loading Init. However, it is now givining an error
>> "Inconsistency detected by ld.so: rtld.c: 1180: dl_main: Assertion
>> `(void *) ph->p_vaddr == _rtld_loc
2009/12/7 Mykal Funk :
> Thanks for the pointers. Once I got the configuration right it would go
> all the way to loading Init. However, it is now givining an error
> "Inconsistency detected by ld.so: rtld.c: 1180: dl_main: Assertion
> `(void *) ph->p_vaddr == _rtld_local._dl_sysinfo_dso’ failed!"
Ken Moffat wrote:
> 2009/12/5 William Immendorf :
>
>> Try building the generic EIDE/PATA driver into the kernel.
>>
>> --
>> William Immendorf
>> The ultimate in free computing.
>> Messages in plain text, please, no HTML.
>>
>> --
>>
> Yeah, I think William has probably hit th
2009/12/5 William Immendorf :
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mykal Funk wrote:
>> Thanks Ken that got the 2.6.30.9 kernel compiled. But I can't seem to
>> boot it. It complains about not having an NFS mount then asks for a root
>> floppy. If I hit a key, the kernel panics. I haven't figured out
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mykal Funk wrote:
> Thanks Ken that got the 2.6.30.9 kernel compiled. But I can't seem to
> boot it. It complains about not having an NFS mount then asks for a root
> floppy. If I hit a key, the kernel panics. I haven't figured out how to
> capture the output.
>
>
Ken Moffat wrote:
> The slightly longer-winded version is to build several versions of
> gcc and binutils, using each to build a newer version. As always,
> the version of binutils needs to be suitable for the version of gcc
> but these things are never documented. Looking back to my old
> notes,
linux fan wrote:
> On 12/3/09, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> You don't necessarily have to build on that machine. However,
>> I realize that may be part of the "challenge".
>
> Hmm, if LFS 6.5 cross compiles, could you build it on a fast machine
> for the slow machine and then put it on the slow machi
linux fan wrote:
> On 12/3/09, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> You don't necessarily have to build on that machine. However,
>> I realize that may be part of the "challenge".
>
> Hmm, if LFS 6.5 cross compiles, could you build it on a fast machine
> for the slow machine and then put it on the slow machi
On 12/3/09, Mike McCarty wrote:
> You don't necessarily have to build on that machine. However,
> I realize that may be part of the "challenge".
Hmm, if LFS 6.5 cross compiles, could you build it on a fast machine
for the slow machine and then put it on the slow machine with rsync or
something?
-
linux fan wrote:
> On 12/3/09, Simon Geard wrote:
>> Wow... if you *do* get a new LFS build running on that, I'd be curious
>> to know how long it took...
>
> My first guess is 11 days or so.
You don't necessarily have to build on that machine. However,
I realize that may be part of the "challeng
On 12/3/09, Simon Geard wrote:
> Wow... if you *do* get a new LFS build running on that, I'd be curious
> to know how long it took...
My first guess is 11 days or so.
Calculating from:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~sbu
MHz=100
one_sbu=5848
lfs_6_5_sbus=153
seconds=899422
time=10,9:50:22
--
ht
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 23:21 -0500, Mykal Funk wrote:
> The machine has collected dust for the last 5 years. As it is a 486DX,
> it will take a couple days to see if your suggestions work. And yes, I
> think I left this one a bit too long. But I like a challenge. Thats why
> I bother with an old
Ken Moffat wrote:
> In general, once you build LFS you are responsible for updating
> it, and rebuilding it in due course. I think you've left this one a bit
> too long.
>
> ĸen
>
The machine has collected dust for the last 5 years. As it is a 486DX,
it will take a couple days to see if your
2009/12/2 Bruce Dubbs :
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>> I am trying to upgrade an LFS 5 system so that I can build an updated
>> LFS 6.5 system. However the compile fails with this output.
>>
>> MODPOST vmlinux.o
>> WARNING: modpost: Found 5 section mismatch(es).
>> To see full details build you kernel with
Mykal Funk wrote:
> I am trying to upgrade an LFS 5 system so that I can build an updated
> LFS 6.5 system. However the compile fails with this output.
>
> MODPOST vmlinux.o
> WARNING: modpost: Found 5 section mismatch(es).
> To see full details build you kernel with:
> 'make CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Mykal Funk wrote:
> Current kernel is linux-2.4.22-openmosix-2, if that helps. I've googled
> around and haven't found anything. I can't get this kernel to compile
> and I'm not sure why.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but you need a 2.6.18 kernel or up to build
LFS 6.5.
I am trying to upgrade an LFS 5 system so that I can build an updated
LFS 6.5 system. However the compile fails with this output.
MODPOST vmlinux.o
WARNING: modpost: Found 5 section mismatch(es).
To see full details build you kernel with:
'make CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y'
GEN .version
CH
20 matches
Mail list logo
