On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 09:19:22PM +0200, Frans de Boer wrote:
> LS,
>
> Below is a repeated piece of information, now being brought as a separate
> issue from systemd.
>
> I get the following error when i try to compile glibc in chapter 6:
> ...
> bison --yacc --name-prefix=__gettext --output
> /sources-lfs/glibc-2.27/glibc-build/intl/plural.c plural.y
> bison: m4 subprocess failed: No such file or directory
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:46:
> /sources-lfs/glibc-2.27/glibc-build/intl/plural.c] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory '/sources-lfs/glibc-2.27/intl'
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:215: intl/subdir_lib] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/sources-lfs/glibc-2.27'
> make: *** [Makefile:9: all] Error 2
>
> If I include 'ln -sfv /tools/bin/m4 /usr/bin' as suggested some time ago, I
> can compile glibc. In an effort to understand why systemd crashes and having
> a message that there is a segfault in glibc while booting, i tried to
> recompile all again. Now I can't even compile glibc.
>
> Is this a result of some modification in the tool chain, or is the
> documentation not up to date?
>
> Regards,
> Frans.
I don't think the documentation is out of date. My last running
system is from 15th June, although I built as far as the end of
chroot from the 26th June book to look at a possible perl issue.
And both were sysv.
This is an unusual problem. I think your version of m4 in /tools is
linked to *host* libc and ld-linux. By copying the prog into chroot
it can now find libc and the loader,
I suggest that, outside chroot, you run ldd on /tools/bin/m4. If I
am right, also check the links for an executable (prog, or lib, or
libexec) from every other package in chapter 5 after pass 2 gcc.
Some of the tools progs appear to be ok, maybe only m4 was wrong,
perhaps you built in stages and resumed without one of the envvars
set correctly, e.g. PATH ?
ĸen
--
Keyboard not found, Press F1 to continue
--
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
