> From: Edgar Alwers <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:28:10 +0200 > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] 6.7 Linux-4.6 API headers make mrproper fails > > Am 23.06.2016 um 10:14 schrieb akhiezer: > >> From: Edgar Alwers <[email protected]> > >> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:18:09 +0200 > >> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] 6.7 Linux-4.6 API headers make mrproper fails > >> > >> > >> Am 22.06.2016 um 18:35 schrieb Pierre Labastie: > >>> Did you type the CC=... CXX=... etc lines? They are needed (with > >>> backslash as continuation character) to get the behavior I > >>> described... Maybe LFS_TGT is not set? Or $LFS_TGT-gcc is not found in > >>> the PATH? To be clear, you can unpack gcc outside chroot and run > >>> configure as you did (hopefully with the CC= etc lines), but as user > >>> "lfs", and with the specific environment for that user. > >> Yes. As user lfs i did as the book says. > > > > Your following wording does not make that clear. > > > > > >> CC=$LFS_TGT-gcc \ > >> CXX=$LFS_TGT-g++ > >> ... > >> Then compilation as indicated in the book: > > > > Your word 'Then' there, suggests that the env-vars command was issued > > as a separate command from the '../configure ...' that you then quote > > below: whereas of course they are all the one cmdline: > > ==== > > Ref: > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter05/gcc-pass2.html > > == > > CC=$LFS_TGT-gcc \ > > CXX=$LFS_TGT-g++ \ > > AR=$LFS_TGT-ar \ > > RANLIB=$LFS_TGT-ranlib \ > > ../configure \ > > --prefix=/tools \ > > --with-local-prefix=/tools \ > > --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include \ > > --enable-languages=c,c++ \ > > --disable-libstdcxx-pch \ > > --disable-multilib \ > > --disable-bootstrap \ > > --disable-libgomp > > ==== > > > > > >> ../configure \ --prefix=/tools \ --with-local-prefix=/tools \ > >> --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include \ > >> --enable-languages=c,c++ \ --disable-libstdcxx-pch \ --disable-multilib > >> \ --disable-bootstrap \ --disable-libgomp > >> > >> goes OK. > >> The mentioned line is "checking for gcc... gcc" > >> > >> LFS_TGT was not set. I got on the corresponding command: > >> bash: `dirname $($LFS_TGT-gcc > >> -print-libgcc-file-name)`/include-fixed/limits.h: Permission denied > >> I anyway think that structures arent more clean now, after going from > >> root to lfs, no chroot, again lfs. I do not trust anymore. > >> I hope, the book can be changed to include 32 bit ;-) > > > > You've said a few times that you definitely didn't make any mistakes. > I do not speak "ex catedra" As far as the building up to ยง 6 concerns, > everything went OK, no errorrs were reported, exact the same behaviour > in both trials, starting once from a systemd host, a second time from a > sysvinit one. configure, make, make install, all OK. To this refers my > comment > > > > If so, then next thing would be to pinpoint why "LFS_TGT was not set". > Dont mix the things. LFS_TG was set in both trials. As I said, no > errors. I was just telling you, that in my effort to check the line you > wanted to see, I repeated, not chrooted, a ./compile, as root or as lfs > or I do not know more what. Forgett it. > > I deleted the archiv gcc-6.1 after pass-2, as instructed by the book. So > clearly: I cannot tell you the content of the line "checking for gcc" in > the compilation process. > > But another comment: it should be the same if I enter the four line > commands > > CC=$LFS_TGT-gcc > CXX=$LFS_TGT-g++ > AR=$LFS_TGT-ar > RANLIB=$LFS_TGT-ranlib > > as single commands and then enter the .compile one or if I give the complete > command as indicated by the book ? > I did the first one. If this was wrong, voila, we have one error ! >
But you said (effectively again) that you did as the book says: and now you say that you did not do as the book says. Example: ---- $ echo 'echo $DFGTRE' > dfgtre.sh $ sh dfgtre.sh $ DFGTRE=2; sh dfgtre.sh $ DFGTRE=2 sh dfgtre.sh 2 $ ---- rgds, akh -- -- 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
