Merging replies to/for Ken and Bruce since it's one thread...
> a quick look at your past few posts (or rather, those which I have
> received - it's always possible my upstream decided to drop one ) only
> shows things to do with the headers.
For clarification then on this fast moving news <cough, cough>: I was
getting failures on the API headers, couldn't figure out why, Bruce
suggested starting over. Did so. Then, magically, I got through the
API headers but died at the GCC check. Stuck there for now with
everything in place for diagnosis.
> My memory of 7.7 is very feint, and in those days my test systems
"Feint" as in "dodgey"? ;-D
> were all AMD, but I do recall that until recently I got various
> failures in gcc. Indeed, that book uses 'make -k check' because
> failures ARE expected. If you get only a few, you are probably good
> to continue. If you get 500+ (been there in LFS-6 on (unsupported)
> ppc) things have broken.
It was going well, but whatever it is caused the make script to fail.
> Actually, that reminds me - the contrib script used to let me run the
> tests in parallel and then summarise the results. At some time in the
> past couple of years I now recall posting (on -dev) that I was getting
> a LOT of failures in the c++ tests. In the end, the solution was to
> use -j1 for the tests.
OK. I've used -j1 in the past, but the book doesn't say so here, as
it does elsewhere, so I was doing -j8 (still modest for a 4 core
hyperthreaded i7 I suppose). I can certainly give that a try, if
it's decided there are no fingerprints to find with the current state
of affairs.
> [ snipping stuff about jhalfs because I don't use it - but you
> probably want the latest version from svn ].
Actually I'd rather NOT use jhalfs because it wouldn't fit in with my
existing infrastructure. All I was expecting from it were scripts I
could check against mine.
> The other thing is that most people who are regularly contributing to
> this list think 7.7 is *old*. At the moment, anybody doing
It's not that old! IMO, of course. Only two releases back.
> development testing is discovering the pleasures (in the sense of
> "this is now undefined behaviour, so we'll trash it") of g++-6.1.
Sounds like some other organization we all know and love. <cough, cough>
> I hope you figure out what the problem is, and that you enjoy your
> builds, but I don't expect a lot of interest in 7.7.
Don't let the label put you off, the book's procedure for the basic
toolchain isn't any different.
>
> I talked to some techs today and thy said it was probably a capacitor
> problem in the power supply. If disconnected for an extended time,
> they lose some of their properties. Most power supplies have some
> sort of trickle current even when powered off.
Indeed, all ATX powersupplies do! The motherboard is powered at all
times. :-o On ATX boxes the only switch for 110v power is, if it's
there and isn't always ("Hey, it costs us a nickle!"), on the power
supply itself. The front panel switch is merely a momentary contact on
the "Hey, wake up" line. That's why the CPU can power it down, you can
do WOL, WOM, WOK, even WOT, etc.
> They said I should probably replace the power supply, but that would
> probably cost more than the whole system is worth.
I'm a salvager, or Boy Scout depending on your point of view. I strip
boxes before dumping them. I've got half a dozen BAT P/S, likewise ATX.
If I have a sudden failure, it'll be 10PM Saturday night! I want to be
able to go to my office, dig out a replacement part, install, and power-
up ASAP. Be prepared.
> model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz
Never liked P4's--too hot! Rather run a P3.
> Actually I'm suprised a bit about the price on ebay: $130. A new
> PS is $40.
Try Fry's. A P4 ATX P/S shouldn't cost much, $20-30 on sale. Keeping
a functioning old system around does have its benefits. I am
convinced of that!
> It might cut down on your questions if you would check the development
> book instead of questioning things published over a year ago.
Oh, I do, it DOES! (When you get to be my age, a year ago wasn't
that long!)
> It takes time to address your concerns and we generally don't mind
> doing that. However, it does waste our time going over old issues
> that are already fixed.
I wasn't questioning the libc.so.6. It was found. Since I don't know
what the problem might be, I was showing all the ones not found. It
isn't clear to me why they aren't found and if that's a/the problem. And
yes, I have checked the 7.9 book and it appears no different but the gcc
version number.
At the moment I have no better idea than Ken's -j1, and that isn't in
either book.
--
Paul Rogers
[email protected]
Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates."
(I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-)
--
http://www.fastmail.com - A fast, anti-spam email service.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
