What happens if I boot a 64-bit system from a 32-bit live CD and build
LFS off of that? I'm assuming that the resulting LFS will be a fully
64-bit system. Or have I misunderstood? (Knowledgeable friends are
recommending me to go for an AMD64 setup and I'd hate not to get the
best out of it.)
C
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Jeremy Henty wrote:
>
> What happens if I boot a 64-bit system from a 32-bit live CD and build
> LFS off of that? I'm assuming that the resulting LFS will be a fully
> 64-bit system. Or have I misunderstood? (Knowledgeable friends are
> recommending me to go for an AMD64 se
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 19:20 +0100, Declan Moriarty wrote:
> BTW, I never sorted out that business of hotplug insisting on giving me
> a usb-2.0 module which sent the usb here jamming syslog. I used a
> workaround
>
> rm -f /lib/modules/2.5.12.1-0705/kernel/drivers/usb/host/ehci_hcd.ko :-D
I remem
Jeremy Henty wrote:
What happens if I boot a 64-bit system from a 32-bit live CD and build
LFS off of that? I'm assuming that the resulting LFS will be a fully
64-bit system. Or have I misunderstood? (Knowledgeable friends are
recommending me to go for an AMD64 setup and I'd hate not to get t
Jeremy Henty wrote:
What happens if I boot a 64-bit system from a 32-bit live CD and build
LFS off of that? I'm assuming that the resulting LFS will be a fully
64-bit system. Or have I misunderstood? (Knowledgeable friends are
recommending me to go for an AMD64 setup and I'd hate not to get t
Matt Darcy wrote:
There is an LFS 64bit boot CD thats very basic. I've used it to build a
pure64 system which was "ok" but it was a bit of a struggle.
You'd be better off using an AMD64 live CD from say gentoo to build a
64bit compatible system, or cross compile which is becoming easier with
Hello all,
I have a LFS 6.0 system and I was wondering if it is save to upgrade
gcc, glibc and binutils to the new versions in 6.1. Will such an
upgrade break anything? Make the system unusable? Or should it be safe?
In case of a glibc upgrade I guess I should also upgrade the kernel
headers.
Lau
Hi Randy,
On 27 Jul 2005 19:39:40 Randy McMurchy wrote:
I still think your issue is the new changes in the sed command in
the BLFS Shadow instructions.
Yeah. I also thought this was not due to HLFS build because earlier also
while building BLFS, similar
errors had occured but went away aft
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 08:29 +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> What happens if I boot a 64-bit system from a 32-bit live CD and build
> LFS off of that? I'm assuming that the resulting LFS will be a fully
> 64-bit system. Or have I misunderstood? (Knowledgeable friends are
> recommending me to go for
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Laurens Blankers wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a LFS 6.0 system and I was wondering if it is save to upgrade gcc,
> glibc and binutils to the new versions in 6.1. Will such an upgrade break
> anything? Make the system unusable? Or should it be safe? In case of a glibc
> upgra
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> >
> > rm -f /lib/modules/2.5.12.1-0705/kernel/drivers/usb/host/ehci_hcd.ko
> > :-D
>
> I remember you mentioning that one... was there some reason why simply
> not building EHCI support doesn't work?
>
> At "Device Drivers" -> "USB Support" -> "EH
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Note that I understand the error. My question is how could it be
>> different from hda1 and 2 when the fs has been made by the same FC4 fs
>> system.
>
> Hrm. Indeed. And I'm not sure about that one. I know there's been
> reports before now concerning
Alex wrote:
I finally manage to solve my problem.
I'm glad that you were able to. However, at least part of your solution
could have skipped. The LiveCD already has LVM2 and device-mapper. ;) So
perhaps we don't have it perfectly configured to auto-detect LVM2
volumes, and we should look int
Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> solution could have skipped. The LiveCD already has LVM2 and
> device-mapper. ;) So perhaps we don't have it perfectly configured to
> auto-detect LVM2 volumes, and we should look into getting that sorted
> out?
You're perfectly right, LVM2 and device-
Alex wrote:
You're perfectly right, LVM2 and device-mapper are already there. But
the device-mapper module doesn't seems to be loaded(I thougt nothing
was there because I couldn't find an entry in /proc/misc). Here is a
short version on how I arrived to that conclusion:
just after login:
#vgsca
Ken Moffat wrote:
For glibc, the _safe_ advice is always to rebuild the whole system :)
I can personally attest to that, having made the fatal error of doing a
'make install' from the wrong xterm and overwriting the host's libc.
Not even 'ls' coped with that tiny mistake!
Binutils and gc
When I compile inetutils with gcc4 i have this error:
tftpsubs.c: In function 'synchnet':
tftpsubs.c:266: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 6 of 'recvfrom'
differ in signedness
if gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -DPATH_WTMPX=\"/var/log/wtmpx\"
-I../include-g -O2 -MT ttymsg.o -
Filip Bartmann schrieb:
> When I compile inetutils with gcc4 i have this error:
>
> tftpsubs.c: In function 'synchnet':
> tftpsubs.c:266: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 6 of 'recvfrom'
> differ in signedness
> if gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -DPATH_WTMPX=\"/var/log/wtmpx\"
>
Filip Bartmann wrote:
When I compile inetutils with gcc4 i have this error:
tftpsubs.c: In function 'synchnet':
tftpsubs.c:266: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 6 of 'recvfrom'
differ in signedness
if gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -DPATH_WTMPX=\"/var/log/wtmpx\"-I../include
Ken Moffat wrote:
...
From an i686 host, you need to cross-compile. I'm hoping to post some
notes on one of my websites in a few days.
...
Btw., thanks for the list of previous notes you posted. It was a great
help to me!
With the combination of your notes, the BLFS development book and
Ryan
in the part where I need to test my basic compiling and linking functions-
it doesn't work!
I type:
echo 'main() {}' > dummy.c
cc dummy.c
The result:
/tools/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.3/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
cannot find /lib/libc.so.6
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Th
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
>
> One package I have wants a 32 bit Xlib, but I got the idea to try
> make a LD_LIBRARY_PATH spanning the old host's X-lib, and to my
> surprise, it actually worked! Don't think I'll bother building X
> in both 32 and 64 mode...
>
Heh, if I get a w
I recently received a new DELL Precision 370 with a Intel 82801RF/FRW
STAT controller (rev 03). I built lfs using a 2.6.10 kernel initially
but the ata_piix kernel module wouldn't recognize that there were drives
attached to the SATA controller. After a bit of reading, I found that
this new rev
23 matches
Mail list logo
