On 07/03/2016 05:28, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 12:46:48AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: >>> >> Eventually, I found a make bug report : /dev/pts needs to be mounted >> (well, duh!) with an upstream commit. I'm sure you will remember >> that my bind mounts did not work [ after user ken had su'd to user >> lfs for chapter 5, and then su'd ] - that looks as if su in fedora >> has been hacked in some way, but I assumed that binding /dev, /proc/ >> and /sys [ by user ken who had su'd to root ] would suffice - I >> forgot about mounting /dev/pts (and anyway, I sort of thought it >> would be there from the bind. >> >> So this time, when I get to chroot I will attempt to check that >> /dev/pts is mounted. >> >> That might well explain my failures (I'm using -j8, the bug was re >> make without any arguments), or it might not. >> >> I'm going to try building gdb and strace in chapter 5, and trying to >> turn on core dumps (unlimited ulimit, apparently). >> >> None of that really explains all of the problems that Bruce and >> Pierre saw, so perhaps I will still be wasting my time. The odd >> thing is that I'm finding 'dnf' much less unpleasant than rpm or the >> apt menagery - but that might just be because I haven't yet tried to >> do anything interesting in dnf. >> > Well, I'm bemused - I haven't attempted to boot this yet (I'm still > building the BLFS packages I build before booting) but it sailed > through chapter 6 (only running tests on toolchain packages, and I > have not looked at the test results for the moment). > > So, for me there seem to be two things to remember when building > from fedora: > > 1. 'su' might not work as expected - when user ken uses 'su', root > can mount /mnt/lfs and bind /dev etc. But when user ken su's to > user lfs and then su's, that session can chroot (so, that implies it > really is root), but attempts to mount --bind and mount -vt on the > way in to chroot fail. > > 2. It might be necessary to turn selinux to off. Not sure, but (I > come from a kernel-tester and occasionally a kernel-hacker > background) disabling selinux on a development system is a good > idea - ask linus! > > Thanks to all who have responded, and particularly to Bruce and > Pierre for the pain I have given you in testing this. And I have no > idea why your systems became broken :-( > > Summary: fedora 23 *can* be used to build LFS - but for many people > it will not be the easiest host to use [ but on the other hand, it > uses kbd rather than console-tools, so it will let users find their > preferred console keymap and font (if any) before they try LFS. > > ĸen >
I'm ashamed I forgot! This was the same issue here. When I started again in the morning, I forgot to re-mount the virtual kernel filesystems. I have now restarted with no problem (and selinux enabled). I've also found another VM with fedora 23 (my VM filesystem directory is a mess, the name of the file is lfs23...), and compiled the whole LFS (using jhalfs), with selinux enabled too. So fedora seems to be usable for LFS, in the end... Pierre Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
