On 7 January 2017 at 06:33, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kevin, I can add a comment ot the kernel section about looking at the uefi
> hint for needed UEFI settings, ...

Yes, I think it might be useful to also point to it within the kernel
build section.

> ... but I think everything else needs to be in
> the hint.

The original issue for me is that the hint is all about building an
UEFI-capable _LFS_ whereas that ONE EXTRA PIECE in the
kernel build is something that needs to be done, so as to make
an LFS systems' kernel bootable from an exisiting UEFI-capable
_HOST_,  so it's not exactly the same thing.



>  If you want to update the hint, send it to me and I will put it
> in the appropriate location.

I was wondering about that.

I am trying to build with the latest of the hint's non-BLFS packages,
given that they've moved on from Dan McGhee's versions, vis:


dosfstools-3.0.26.tar.gz -> dosfstools-3.0.28.tar.gz
efivar-devel-0.12.tar.gz -> efivar-devel-30.tar.gz
efibootmgr-devel-efibootmgr-0.9.0.tar.gz ->
efibootmgr-devel-efibootmgr-0.12.tar.gz

The later dosfstools builds OK, but I have just hit an issue with efivars, see,

https://github.com/rhinstaller/efivar/issues/78

so I'll await the resolution of that before looking to fully refresh the hint.

For anyone following this for now, be aware that:

1) The issue I raised highlights the one change I had to make to Dan's recipie,

sed 's|-O0|-Os|g' -i Make.defaults

becomes

sed 's|-O2|-Os|g' -i Make.defaults



2) I need to rebuild BLFS's popt with --enable-static (The BLFS default is
     --disable-static), although the hint doesn't mention that, it
just says build
    popt as per the book, so, what version of the BLFS book would Dan have
    been writing the hint against in 2014?
  Would that have been a "static" build of popt, back then, or have the efivar's
  requirements changed in the meantime?


More anon.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to