make install was run and no errors what so ever, what i'll do is go back to
my snapshot i made after 6.10, i tried this before but im gonna go ahead
and do it again just to see if i dont have my old gcc-build folder hanging
around.
Ill let you know if i encounter the same problem again after the 3rd
attempt of getting past this.
You will hear from me soon,
Kaleb
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:42:03AM +0100, Kaleb van Ingen Schenau wrote:
> > Hi, and thanks for the respond
> >
> > Throughout the book i've encountered 0 problems or errors and everything
> > goes according to the book. It just seems weird that everything works as
> > intended at chapter 6.10 then somewhere between that and compiling
> > bin-utils and GCC it messes up somewhere, could this be something that i
> > maybe mistyped earlier and i'm not experiencing the effects from. (Note
> > that EVERY test till this point have been 100% accurate to what to book
> > states it should be)
> > But to anwser your questions:
> > >>Then when i run:
> > > >#grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
> > >> SEARCH_DIR("/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib")
> > >> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib")
> > >> SEARCH_DIR("/lib");
> > >>
> > >> which is also not correct
> >
> > >That seems to be correct - please compare it to the book - 3
> > >matches, for /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu, /usr/lib, /lib. For this
> > >part I don't see any error - please point it out if I'm wrong!
> >
> > The book says it should be:
> > SEARCH_DIR("/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib")
> > SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib")
> > SEARCH_DIR("/lib")
> > SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib");
> >
> > So I'm somehow still pointing to /tools while it seems that i should be
> > searching in /usr and /lib, i think this might a main reason why it isn't
> > working.
> >
> You were right all along, it doesn't match : I'll have to blame the
> prescription painkillers I'm on (only ibuprofen and paracetomol!).
> Sorry, no idea how I misread what the book says.
>
> > >Are you doing something unusual ? That probably includes building
> > >on a virtual machine, using the package_users hint, and building on
> > >mingw or whatever on windows. Or using minimalist packages (dash,
> > >busybox). If this is a straight build linux from linux, did you
> > >check the host against the Host System Requirements in the preface ?
> >
> > I'm building on a virtual PC running Centos 6.3 which i think fit the
> Host
> > System Requirements, other then that I'm not using anything the book
> > doesn't tell me to and i haven't skipped anything, I'm just doing what
> the
> > book is telling me to do. Have the logs been of any help maybe?
> > pastebin.com/dCjzz5yb <<---- or is there anything else i can supply you
> > with to help me?
> >
> [ snipping my original reply below this - please don't top post, and
> trim what you are replying to. ]
>
> I've no idea about virtual machines, maybe someone else can offer
> suggestions about specific changes (if any) needed - but I don't
> recall seeing problems from them apart from selecting the right
> kernel options.
>
> So to recap, hopefully correctly - your include directories from
> gcc are not as expected, and the SEARCH_DIRs begin in /tools.
>
> That last point is correct for 6.10 (hmm, maybe I was looking there
> instead of 6.17 when I replied).
>
> Going back to check my _own_ (64-bit) logs from 7.2 (with a lot of
> things collected up), in 6.10 I see that I have:
> ignoring nonexistent directory
>
> "/tools/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.1/../../../../x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include"
> ignoring duplicate directory "/tools/include"
> #include "..." search starts here:
> #include <...> search starts here:
> /usr/include
> /tools/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.1/include
> /tools/include
> /tools/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.1/include-fixed
>
> and
> SEARCH_DIR("/tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib64");
> SEARCH_DIR("/tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib");
> SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("/lib");
> (this time, word-wrapping has mad a long line become 3 individual
> lines).
>
> I *think* that looks as if your results at the end of 6.17 match,
> or are at least similar to, your results in 6.10 ? Is it possible
> that you omitted 'make install' after running the tests on gcc ?
>
> Other than that, I'm again out of ideas.
>
> ĸen
> --
> das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
> --
> 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
