> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 04:21:11 -0400 > From: Jean-Marc Pigeon <[email protected]> > To: LFS Support List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] version SVN-20140815, file-5.19 make problem, > (zlib) > > > Quoting [email protected]: > > >> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 03:43:22 -0400 > >> From: Chris Staub <[email protected]> > >> To: LFS Support List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] version SVN-20140815, file-5.19 make problem, > >> (zlib) > >> > >> On 08/18/14 03:37, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote: > >> > Bonjour, > >> > > >> > Not Anymore, the trace directory have been deleted > >> > (working now on 7.5), trying to see If I using LFS > >> > building procedure within RPM is achievable or not. > >> > > >> > I noticed the "zlib" problem (I guessed this > >> > version of file was requesting libz), if > >> > you can't reproduce it...I may be wrong... > >> > >> File will only use libz if it can successfully link to it, which it > >> should not be able to in Chapter 5. So, if it is trying and failing to > >> link to libz, that usually means a broken toolchain. The LFS book > > > > > > - and wasn't an earlier message re ld &c: > > > > O4853 Jean-Marc Pigeon Sun Aug 17 21:09 235/13593 \ > > [lfs-support] Version SVN-20140815, GCC-4.9.1 - Pass 2, ld problem > > > > (I was slightly surprised to see 'file-5.19' stage being mentioned without > > (iirc) note of solving ld issue.) > > > > > > > > akh > > > > > > > >> instructions do work just fine as they are; there is no need to add Zlib > >> to Chapter 5. > > > Bonjour ahk, > > My post about ld vs ld-new, was reporting how I fixed
It seemed to me that if you 'had' to take the ld/ld-new step that you did, then something had gone wrong or been omitted earlier: because you shouldn't (normally) need to do such a thing - just like for the present 'zlib' apparent-fix; as Chris (iiuic) noted, you might not actually be 'fixing' what you think you're fixing with such steps. IOW, 'back-filling' in early ch.5 is usually not a good way to go: you want everything to be just-so. I don't know exactly what might've caused the ld/ld-new stuff: but do double-check again the early ch.5 steps; there are some steps there - e.g. the multi-line sed in gcc-pass1/2' - that one needs to be careful in e.g. copy'n'pasting. Was just meaning the comments today as a sidelight - not meaning to crash a thread: at the same time, it seemed to me that you might have the foundations not right and that if so then 'file-5.19' stage would likely also throw up issues. hth, akh > it. My question was about what point I could have missed, As I seen > nowhere else something about ld-new. > > Could both problem be related... May be...I fail to se how. > -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
