2014-04-23 13:55 GMT+08:00 Bruce Dubbs :
> xinglp wrote:
>> 2014-04-23 11:39 GMT+08:00 Armin K. :
>>> On 04/23/2014 05:15 AM, xinglp wrote:
>>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
>>>> n
xinglp wrote:
> 2014-04-23 11:39 GMT+08:00 Armin K. :
>> On 04/23/2014 05:15 AM, xinglp wrote:
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
>>> not found.
>>>
>>> There's only
>>> svn:/
2014-04-23 11:39 GMT+08:00 Armin K. :
> On 04/23/2014 05:15 AM, xinglp wrote:
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
>> not found.
>>
>> There's only
>> svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/patch
On 04/23/2014 05:15 AM, xinglp wrote:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
> not found.
>
> There's only
> svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/trunk/coreutils/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault.patch
>
Patches get
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
not found.
There's only
svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/trunk/coreutils/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault.patch
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ:
loki wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:41 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> loki wrote:
>>
>>> the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well
>>> as in the download links.
>>
>> I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:41 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> loki wrote:
>
> > the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well
> > as in the download links.
>
> I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which download link are you
> referring to
loki wrote:
> the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well
> as in the download links.
I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which download link are you
referring to?
It does appear to be missing from the 7.5 md5sums and wget-list files
also. I'
Heya,
the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well
as in the download links. Had to download it through the book, Chapter
3.
Regards,
Daniel
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See
Em 08-01-2014 09:31, akhiezer escreveu:
> Hi Fernando,
>
> If ever being added to the book - it's
> low-maint - then probly 'good form' to drop the author a wee thanks note or
> similar (eml-addr via foot of proj homepage). (Disclaimer: I don't have any
> vested interest in the software, or kn
> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 20:52:41 -0300
> From: Fernando de Oliveira
> To: LFS Support List
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>
> Em 07-01-2014 10:23, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> > Em 07-01-2014 09:39, akhiezer escreveu:
> >>> D
Em 07-01-2014 10:23, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> Em 07-01-2014 09:39, akhiezer escreveu:
>>> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:50:24 -0300
>>> From: Fernando de Oliveira
>>> To: LFS Support List
>>> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>>
Em 07-01-2014 09:39, akhiezer escreveu:
>> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:50:24 -0300
>> From: Fernando de Oliveira
>> To: LFS Support List
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>>
> .
> .
>> I do not have "tree" in my s
> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:50:24 -0300
> From: Fernando de Oliveira
> To: LFS Support List
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>
.
.
> I do not have "tree" in my system. It is nice having it. Did I miss it
> during some wrong in
Em 07-01-2014 08:14, Parmenides escreveu:
> From: akhiezer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 1:31 AM
> To: LFS Support List
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>
> Hi akhiezer,
...
>> Is writer/name an empty file, or what? Can you post:
>> $ tree
From: akhiezer
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 1:31 AM
To: LFS Support List
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
Hi akhiezer,
Thanks for your reply.
> Is writer/name an empty file, or what? Can you post:
> $ tree -apugsDF old new
Both writer and name are directories. The
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:31:39 +
> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
> To: LFS Support List
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>
> > From: "Parmenides"
> > To:
> > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:10:55 +0800
> >
> From: "Parmenides"
> To:
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:10:55 +0800
> Subject: [lfs-support] Patch delete a directory
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure whether I should ask this quesiton here. I am trying
> 'diff' and 'patch', and hav
Hi,
I am not sure whether I should ask this quesiton here. I am trying
'diff' and 'patch', and have encounter a problem.
I have create two directories as follows:
old
|-- musician
| `-- name
`-- writer
new
|-- musician
| `-- name
`-- writer
`-- name
Then
On 09/01/2013 09:57 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>> I have just built the book after updating from svn and it doesn't have
>>> the tar man page patch in the wget-list nor in the md5sums files.
>> OK, thanks. I'll
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
>> I have just built the book after updating from svn and it doesn't have
>> the tar man page patch in the wget-list nor in the md5sums files.
>
> OK, thanks. I'll investigate.
Needed a minor change to the Makefile. Please
Baho Utot wrote:
> I have just built the book after updating from svn and it doesn't have
> the tar man page patch in the wget-list nor in the md5sums files.
OK, thanks. I'll investigate.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-s
I have just built the book after updating from svn and it doesn't have
the tar man page patch in the wget-list nor in the md5sums files.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
lifrsc.m.klsw...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
> The Systemd branch (snapshot SYSTEMD-20130504) of the book makes use of
> glibc-2.17-fhs-1.patch to avoid a non FHS compliant directory.
> Do you intend to use it in the main branch (SVN) too?
Right now, I don't think so. The only thing i
The Systemd branch (snapshot SYSTEMD-20130504) of the book makes use of
glibc-2.17-fhs-1.patch to avoid a non FHS compliant directory.
Do you intend to use it in the main branch (SVN) too?
Klaus Wulff
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http
On 12/16/2012 06:55 AM, JIA Pei wrote:
>
> Hi, all:
>
> 1) From
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html
> , binutils pass 1 requires a patch, why?
> What is this patch for?
>
> *patch -Np1 -i ../binutils-2.22-build_fix-1.patch*
JIA Pei wrote these words on 12/16/12 05:55 CST:
> Hi, all:
>
> 1) From
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html,
> binutils pass 1 requires a patch, why?
>
> 2) Since I'm trying to use the most recent package, say binutils-2.2
On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 03:55 -0800, JIA Pei wrote:
>
>
> Hi, all:
>
>
> 1) From
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html
> , binutils pass 1 requires a patch, why?
>
> What is this patch for?
>
>
> patch -Np
Hi, all:
1) From
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html,
binutils pass 1 requires a patch, why?
What is this patch for?
*patch -Np1 -i ../binutils-2.22-build_fix-1.patch*
2) Since I'm trying to use the most recent package, say binutils-2.23.1,
inste
Hello,
Thanks bruce and spiky, it works now. i havent untarred the file and trying
to apply patch..
Now it works..
Best regards, Sankar
You are in the wrong directory. Go back and re-read section 5.3. Pay
special attention to the sections labelled important.
-- Bruce
What dir are you in
San blue wrote:
> Hi Colleagues,
>
> When i'm executing the patch for Binutils-2.22, i'm getting the below error :
>
> --
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/tools$ patch -Np1 -i ../sources/binutils-2.22-build_fix-1
On 13/10/12 20:10, San blue wrote:
> Hi Colleagues,
>
> When i'm executing the patch for Binutils-2.22, i'm getting the below error :
>
> --
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/tools$ patch -Np1 -i ../sources/binutils-2.
Hi Colleagues,
When i'm executing the patch for Binutils-2.22, i'm getting the below error :
--
lfs:/mnt/lfs/tools$ patch -Np1 -i ../sources/binutils-2.22-build_fix-1.patch
can't find file to patch at input line
On Jul 14, 2012, at 15:06 PM, Wayne Sallee wrote:
> LOL now I reailze that I did not forget to patch it. That's not until
> 6.54. and I'm still in 5.28.
> I normally don't get lost that easily. :-)
>
> I'll be ok ,, really :-)
>
> Wayne Sal
LOL now I reailze that I did not forget to patch it. That's not until
6.54. and I'm still in 5.28.
I normally don't get lost that easily. :-)
I'll be ok ,, really :-)
Wayne Sallee
wa...@waynesallee.com
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:32:40PM -0400, Wayne Sallee wrote:
>> Then I realized that I forgot to run:
>> patch -Np1 -i ../patch-2.6.1-test_fix-1.patch
>>
>> Is this not a problem since I did not run "make check", or should I go
>&g
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:32:40PM -0400, Wayne Sallee wrote:
>
> Then I realized that I forgot to run:
> patch -Np1 -i ../patch-2.6.1-test_fix-1.patch
>
> Is this not a problem since I did not run "make check", or should I go
> back and redo it, and if so, what meth
In 6.54. Patch-2.6.1
I ran:
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
make install
Then I realized that I forgot to run:
patch -Np1 -i ../patch-2.6.1-test_fix-1.patch
Is this not a problem since I did not run "make check", or should I go
back and redo it, and if so, what method shoul
On 03/29/2012 07:58 PM, xinglp wrote:
> 在 2012年3月29日 下午11:58，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM, xinglp wrote:
>>
>>> 在 2012年3月29日 下午11:03，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
>>>
>>>> What
在 2012年3月29日 下午11:58，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM, xinglp wrote:
>>
>> 在 2012年3月29日 下午11:03，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
>> > What patch would that be?
>> > The book doesn't mention any.
>>
>>
>> http://ww
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM, xinglp wrote:
> 在 2012年3月29日 下午11:03，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
> > What patch would that be?
> > The book doesn't mention any.
>
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter05/binutils-pass2.html
> =
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM, xinglp wrote:
> 在 2012年3月29日 下午11:03，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
> > What patch would that be?
> > The book doesn't mention any.
>
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter05/binutils-pass2.html
> =
在 2012年3月29日 下午11:03，Alexander Kapshuk 写道：
> What patch would that be?
> The book doesn't mention any.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter05/binutils-pass2.html
=
5.9.1. Installation of Binutils
Create a separate build dire
What patch would that be?
The book doesn't mention any.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM, xinglp wrote:
>
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above informa
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Adam Del Vecchio wrote:
> Hello LFS'ers,
>
> I'm running through my first attempt at LFS. I'm using Ubuntu 11.10
> for a host system, running off a live usb. I'm using the current
> stable version of the book. I went to apply the
> glibc-2.14.1-gcc_fix-1 p
Hello LFS'ers,
I'm running through my first attempt at LFS. I'm using Ubuntu 11.10 for a host
system, running off a live usb. I'm using the current stable version of the
book. I went to apply the glibc-2.14.1-gcc_fix-1 patch, and it resulted in the
following error:
patchi
cross_compile-1.patch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/gcc/gcc-4.6.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch
Andy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
config.
>
> -- Bruce
>
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
What if it is needed? Is there no patch?
--
Thank you,
-Brian
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
bsquared wrote:
> Hello;
> I got three different section mismatch warnings. I found patches for
> two, but I am not finding any for this one.
>
> LD drivers/built-in.o
> WARNING: drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x10539d): Section mismatch in
> reference from the function parport_pc_probe_port() t
Hello;
I got three different section mismatch warnings. I found patches for
two, but I am not finding any for this one.
LD drivers/built-in.o
WARNING: drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x10539d): Section mismatch in
reference from the function parport_pc_probe_port() to the function
.init.text:plat
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Mark Maurer wrote:
> All --
>
> I was flowing along nicely with LFS 6.8, until I come to the second pass
> of gcc 4.5.2 (after the binutils second pass). Where the book says to
> patch
> it (section 5.10.1) to revert to the old behavior with this command:
>
> pa
All --
I was flowing along nicely with LFS 6.8, until I come to the second pass
of gcc 4.5.2 (after the binutils second pass). Where the book says to patch
it (section 5.10.1) to revert to the old behavior with this command:
patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-4.5.2-startfiles_fix-1.patch
This command just
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> robert wrote these words on 12/12/10 12:43 CST:
>> Suddenly, I suspected that to be the problem ... maybe
>> not. In any case, I've one terminal and only one tab ... chroot.
>> Things seem to be going swimmingly ... until this -npl -Npl moment.
>
> And just for completen
On Sunday 12 December 2010 17:03:04 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> robert wrote these words on 12/12/10 12:43 CST:
> > Suddenly, I suspected that to be the problem ... maybe
> > not. In any case, I've one terminal and only one tab ... chroot.
> > Things seem to be going swimmingly ... until this -npl -Np
robert wrote these words on 12/12/10 12:43 CST:
> Suddenly, I suspected that to be the problem ... maybe
> not. In any case, I've one terminal and only one tab ... chroot.
> Things seem to be going swimmingly ... until this -npl -Npl moment.
And just for completeness, you still have the syntax
Mike Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:37:33AM -0600, Robert Mullin wrote:
>> root:/sources# tar xf bzip2-1.0.5.tar.gz
>> root:/sources# cd bzip2-1.0.5
>> root:/sources/bzip2-1.0.5# patch -np1 -i ../bzip2-1.0.5-install_docs-1.patch
>> patch: Only garbage w
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:37:33AM -0600, Robert Mullin wrote:
> root:/sources# tar xf bzip2-1.0.5.tar.gz
> root:/sources# cd bzip2-1.0.5
> root:/sources/bzip2-1.0.5# patch -np1 -i ../bzip2-1.0.5-install_docs-1.patch
> patch: Only garbage was found in the patch input.
>
>
root:/sources# tar xf bzip2-1.0.5.tar.gz
root:/sources# cd bzip2-1.0.5
root:/sources/bzip2-1.0.5# patch -np1 -i ../bzip2-1.0.5-install_docs-1.patch
patch: Only garbage was found in the patch input.
What's gone wrong? I've downloaded the patches anew twice ... no luck
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> robert wrote:
>
>> I have a fairly good "beginner's" grasp of the compile/build procedure.
>> And yes, I refer often to 5.3.
>
> Until you get the hang of things, I suggest having three windows open.
>
> 1. Browser at the bottom of Section 5.3.
> http://www.linuxfromscra
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:58:37AM -0600, robert wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Mike. Just a mis-pasted error. I caught it, corrected it, and
> now proceed along my way.
>
> And thanks too for the respectful suggestion.
>
> I have a fairly good "beginner's" grasp of the compile/build procedure.
> A
robert wrote:
> I have a fairly good "beginner's" grasp of the compile/build procedure.
> And yes, I refer often to 5.3.
Until you get the hang of things, I suggest having three windows open.
1. Browser at the bottom of Section 5.3.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/g
Mike Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:11:57AM -0600, robert wrote:
>> from within linux-2.6.36.1 directory
>> $patch -Np1 -i ../glibc-2.12.1-gcc_fix-1.patch
>>
>> yields:
>> patching file nptl/sysdeps/pthread/pt-initfini.c
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at
Mike Hollis wrote these words on 11/25/10 09:33 CST:
> You are in the wrong directory . You are trying to apply a glibc patch
> to the Linux kernel. You should be in the unpacked glibc directory.
> I don't think you understand the fundamentals of the install procedure
> and a
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:11:57AM -0600, robert wrote:
> from within linux-2.6.36.1 directory
> $patch -Np1 -i ../glibc-2.12.1-gcc_fix-1.patch
>
> yields:
> patching file nptl/sysdeps/pthread/pt-initfini.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 45.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to
ising, but the directions are on
several occasions quite vague.
I am taking rather fastidiously accurate notes as I move through the
build process and will share those areas of "vagueness" in the future.
Thanks for your attention.
robert
William Immendorf wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 a
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:11 AM, robert wrote:
> from within linux-2.6.36.1 directory
> $patch -Np1 -i ../glibc-2.12.1-gcc_fix-1.patch
I really don't mean to offend you, but that is very stupid. Patching a
package with a patch meant for another package, that is a pretty
idiotic act.
T
from within linux-2.6.36.1 directory
$patch -Np1 -i ../glibc-2.12.1-gcc_fix-1.patch
yields:
patching file nptl/sysdeps/pthread/pt-initfini.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 45.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
nptl/sysdeps/pthread/pt-initfini.c.rej
patching file sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386
got it at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/glibc/glibc-2.12.1-gcc_fix-1.patch
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Glibc GCC Build Fix Patch - 2.5 KB:
Download:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/glibc-2.12.1-gcc_fix-1.patch
MD5 sum: d1f28cb98acb9417fe52596908bbb9fd
404
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
ocument
>>> failures to the list? I'm building x86_64 and there was a note on the
>>> ticket that glibc built fine without the patch.
> >
>> I'm going with Andy's first suggestion (see the other thread).
>>
>> ĸen (mightily confused by the g
64 and there was a note on the
>> ticket that glibc built fine without the patch.
>
> I'm going with Andy's first suggestion (see the other thread).
>
> ĸen (mightily confused by the gmail interface changes)
I would suggest this sed, it works for me:
sed -i 's/ot
uilt fine without the patch.
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
I'm going with Andy's first suggestion (see the other thread).
ĸen (mighti
be changed.
Does this mean that we should revert to make-3.81 and proceed merrily
from there? Maybe just continue on with the current SVN and document
failures to the list? I'm building x86_64 and there was a note on the
ticket that glibc built fine without the patch.
--
http://linuxfrom
On 4 August 2010 17:23, William Immendorf > Well, I don't know where
the heck the patch came from, so I'll just
> wait untill Matt gets the patch ready. But we would like it soon, as
> I'm getting impatient for it...
>
Yeah, I suspect make-3.82 will turn out to be too
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Dan McGhee wrote:
> The patch is in the wget-list but I couldn't find it on any of the LFS
> download sites. Is there another way, about which I have forgotten, to
> get it?
Well, I don't know where the heck the patch came from, so I'll ju
Using SVN-20100803 at Chapter 5.2, Glibc-2.11.2. Applying the patch
command for glibc-2.11.2-makefile_fix-1.patch failed with "No such file
or directory."
The patch is in the wget-list but I couldn't find it on any of the LFS
download sites. Is there another way, about which I
On Sunday 20 June 2010 11:11:01 Paul Rogers wrote:
> Having just installed LFS-6.6 with kernel-2.6.32.7, I thought I'd
> look into patching it to the current patch level. OTOH, I'm on a
> 40Kbps dialup line and a 10MB patch-2.6.33 is big enough to: a)
> give me pause before
On 6/20/10, Paul Rogers wrote:
> Is there someplace where someone writes about "what's new" in
> kernel patches? New and removed features, considerations about
> implementation, etc.? Someplace where we can see what's in it,
> whether it "has anything for us or not"?
Kernel newbies is usually
Having just installed LFS-6.6 with kernel-2.6.32.7, I thought I'd
look into patching it to the current patch level. OTOH, I'm on a
40Kbps dialup line and a 10MB patch-2.6.33 is big enough to: a)
give me pause before attempting a few hours of downloading, b)
suggest that there's s
, Feb 11, 2010 9:49 am
Subject: Re: GCC patch failure LFS 6.5
bchaf...@programmer.net wrote these words on 02/11/10 08:13 CST:
> This command: patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-4.4.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch
>
> fails with the following error:
>
> patching file gcc/gcc.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at
bchaf...@programmer.net wrote these words on 02/11/10 08:13 CST:
> This command: patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-4.4.1-startfiles_fix-1.patch
>
> fails with the following error:
>
> patching file gcc/gcc.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 6370.
> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file gc
First off, hello everyone.
I am doing my first build of LFS, and I seem to have hit a little snag.
I am using book version 6.5, and I am up to 5.10: GCC-4.4.1 Pass 2
Up until now, I have had no apparent errors.
I am using Fedora 10 with GCC 4.3.2 and patch 2.6 on a Pentium 4 as my build
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Kyle Rush wrote:
>
> What's up with the gcc-4.1.2-specs-1.patch?
>
> when I run it, it prompts for what file to patch, and it seems to think it
> should patch a whole bunch of files, none of which actually exist. If I
> try to patch them an
On 09/02/10 12:48, Kyle Rush wrote:
>
> What's up with the gcc-4.1.2-specs-1.patch?
>
> when I run it, it prompts for what file to patch, and it seems to think it
> should patch a whole bunch of files, none of which actually exist. If I
> try to patch them anyway, it says
What's up with the gcc-4.1.2-specs-1.patch?
when I run it, it prompts for what file to patch, and it seems to think it
should patch a whole bunch of files, none of which actually exist. If I
try to patch them anyway, it says "error on line #, can't find file to
patch"
but whe
zzf...@embarqmail.com wrote:
[...]
> I read the post udev-config md5 sum and I don't think I
> fully undestand the the part about timestamps and md5sums.
The tarball has information about the files it contains,
including date and time information, so the extracted
file can be "touched" to reprod
zzf...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> I read the post udev-config md5 sum and I don't think I
> fully undestand the the part about timestamps and md5sums.
The book is rebuilt daily and the udev-config and bootscripts are
extracted from the book's xml source. This causes a daily change in the
tar file
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>Is the md5 sum for gcc 70f5ac588a79e3c9901d5b34f58d896d ?
>Does the patch have the sum
>799ef1971350d2e3c794f2123f247cc6
>?
>Did you remove the directory from pass 1 and re-extract
>gcc?
>I get:
>$ patch -Np1 -i ../gcc-4.4.2-startfiles_fix-1.
zzf...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> I just completed a build from LFS Version SVN-20100109. I
> to tinker a little to get it working, but that is to be
> expected with a development build.
>
> My host system is a Live Disk 6.3 - jhalfs build.
>
> When I tried to apply gcc-4.4.2-s
I just completed a build from LFS Version SVN-20100109. I
to tinker a little to get it working, but that is to be
expected with a development build.
My host system is a Live Disk 6.3 - jhalfs build.
When I tried to apply gcc-4.4.2-startfiles_fix-1.patch to
the freshly unpacked gcc-4.4.2 per
2009/12/19 Chris Staub :
>
> The
> usual cause for this is missing perl. Do "ls -l /usr/bin/perl" and "perl
> -V".
Jonathan,
also check that you created all of the symlinks in 6.6.
ĸen
--
After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ
> Hi Chris,
> Here's the output after running grep as you outlined above.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> > /sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fopenloc.check
> /sources/glibc-build/malloc/mtrace
> /sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fopenloc.mtrace>>
> /sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fopenloc.check
> /bin/
2009/12/18 Jonathan Wilkes :
> > /sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fopenloc.check
> /sources/glibc-build/malloc/mtrace
> /sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fopenloc.mtrace >>
> /sources/glibc-build/libio/tst-fopenloc.check
> /bin/sh: /sources/glibc-build/malloc/mtrace: No such file or director
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:16:01 -0500
> From: Chris Staub
> Subject: Re: Knoppix is missing the patch command
> To: LFS Support List
> Message-ID: <4b2b1e21.3050...@beaker67.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
[...]
On 12/18/2009 12:56 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>
> Dominic and everyone else,
> Thanks for the tips. I found "patch" after refreshing the
> synaptic packages, and it installed fine. Now I'm on level 6.9, and
> I get these errors when I run the tests on gli
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:26:31 -0500
> From: Dominic Ringuet
> Subject: Re: Knoppix is missing the patch command
> To: LFS Support List
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The information may be outdated (1 year ago),
The information may be outdated (1 year ago), but I managed to build a dev
LFS system from Knoppix 5.1 on a PII with 256mb RAM.
The 3 tricks I remember were:
1. Use a swap partition, the build failed for obscure reasons without any
and it was in gcc too if I remember correctly. *1.5gig has
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
