On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:25:03PM +0300, Thanos Baloukas wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 10:51 πμ, Νίκος Λαμπόβας wrote:
> > (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.15-0ubuntu10.6) 2.15
> 
> Not sure about EGLIBC, the rest look good.
> LFS-7.10 had library-check.sh too.
> 
Eglibc was a fork of glibc, back in the days when glibc upstream
could be unploeasant.  The 7.10 book needed glibc-2.11, so 2.15
should be ok (although like Thanos I don't know why you are building
such an old version).
> >         I have built lfs all over again until "6.40 perl" for watching
> >         all warnings and possible package errors.
> >         The commands you mentioned on 'Creating Essential Files and
> >         Symlinks' were executed successfully.
> >         Also there is no reference of 'tools' in gcc specs file on '
> >         Adjusting the toolchain' and all debug messages
> >         for program interpreter are mention /lib/ld-linux.so.2 and not
> >         /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2.
> >         A strange thing i have noticed is that all binaries of the
> >         packages before 6.17 GCC-6.2.0, have correct paths
> >         on ldd command. For example:
> > 
> >             ldd /usr/bin/file
> >               linux-gate.so.1 (0xb773a000)
> >               libmagic.so.1 => /usr/lib/libmagic.so.1 (0xb7710000)
> >               libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0xb76f5000)
> >               libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb753e000)
> >               /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb773b000)
> > 
> >         But after GCC-6.2.0 all the libraries point to 'tools'. For example:
> > 
> >             ldd /bin/bzip2
> >               linux-gate.so.1 (0xb7747000)
> >               libbz2.so.1.0 => not found
> >               libc.so.6 => /tools/lib/libc.so.6 (0xb758e000)
> >               /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7748000)
> > 

Nasty. Nikos, you didn't need to go all the way to perl, if things
are wrong like this then they won't magically get better.

But like most other people I've stopped building on 32-bit and I
don't have a clue what went wrong.
> > 
> >       Also the specs file for 6.10 section in the dir (
> > /tools/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/6.2.0/specs) has this entry for the
> > linker
> > %{muclibc:/lib/ld-uClibc.so.0;:%{mbionic:/system/bin/linker;:%{mmusl:/lib/ld-musl-i386.so.1;:/lib/ld-linux.so.2}}}

You should ignore the linkers for uClibc and musl - those are
alternative (small) versions of libc mostly intended for embedded
systems.

> One last thing I noted is your bash prompt
> > root:/build_lfs_scripts#
> which indicates that you scripted the build. That has benefits, but
> did you ensure that your scripts exit when a command fails, putting
> 'set -e' (without quotes) after #!/bin/bash? If using pipes,
> 'set -o pipefail' is needed too.

Yes, runaway scripts that continue after errors can give very
strange rsults.  But usually a package fails to install.

ĸen
-- 
Before the universe began, there was a sound. It went: "One, two, ONE,
two, three, four" [...] The cataclysmic power chord that followed was
the creation of time and space and matter and it does Not Fade Away.
 - wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Music_With_Rocks_In


-- 
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

Reply via email to