>>chroot("/var/tmp/LFS") = 0
>>chdir("/") = 0
>>execve("/tools/bin/env", ["/tools/bin/env", "-i", "HOME=/root", "TERM=linux",
>>"PS1=\\u:\\w\\$ ", "PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sb"..., "/tools/bin/bash",
>>"--login", "+h"], [/* 71 vars */]) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
>
> Looks like you maybe don't have a /var/tmp/LFS/tools/bin/env file, so
> after the code does the chroot, it can't find /tools/bin/env.
No, it's there.
> Was /tools a symlink to /var/tmp/LFS/tools, like in the book?
Yes, and still is.
> I'm not familiar with the lfs_next_to_existing_systems.txt hint, but did
> you follow that at all? I would think that if you did, you wouldn't be
> doing the chroot, though.
Well, to be honest, there is nothing really basically different in how you build
your system between plain LFS and lfs-ntes. I really think it's a problem of
that missing linux-gate.so.1, well, missing is kind of wrong, I guess, since
it's only a virtual library anyway.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/LFS> ldd bin/env
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libc.so.6 => /tools/lib/libc.so.6 (0x40019000)
/tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/LFS>
The funny thing about this is that all the time the linker and gcc were doing
the compilation and linking correctly. At least that's what readelf and the
output of the compilation sessions lead to believe me. The $LFS was built with a
SuSE 9.3 host system, maybe this is an issue. Or maybe because I do not mount
sysfs?
Regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
addr://Rathausgasse 31, CH-5001 Aarau tel://++41 62 823 9355
http://www.terreactive.com fax://++41 62 823 9356
-------------------------------------------------------------
terreActive AG Wir sichern Ihren Erfolg
-------------------------------------------------------------
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
