On 2/4/21 2:50 PM, Frans de Boer wrote:
On 04/02/2021 21:21, Pierre Labastie wrote:
On Thu, 2021-02-04 at 20:03 +0100, Frans de Boer wrote:
On 04/02/2021 16:22, Scott Andrews wrote:
On 2/4/21 9:14 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
The new instructions for compiling file-5.39 in the first phase,
are
incomplete. As it turns out, you can only compile file when the
configure command is augmented with '--disable-libseccomp'. The
file
$LFS/usr/include/libseccomp/seccomp.h does not exist yet, cause
to
halt compilation with the message that seccomp.h is missing.
--- Frans.
That should exist as it should have been installed in LFS-10.0
5.4.1.
BTW I am not a fan of the new "building system" as it takes
excessive
liberties about overwriting things
No, what is installed is /usr/include/seccomp.h, not the one what is
needed.
I think this need some clarification on your side: when did you get
that missing include? When compiling the first pass of file (in build),
or the second pass?
In the first pass, you depend on what is on the host, it's a "normal"
compilation on host. It may be that seccomp.h is missing on the host,
some -dev or -devel package is not installed. I've never seen that
before.
In the second pass, you depend on what is in $LFS, and yes seccomp.h is
installed in 5.4.1 (see last line of the instructions): usr/include
(no /, so relative to the kernel build dir) is copied recursively to
$LFS/usr.
Pierre
Pierre,
As stated above, it happens in the first pass.
I have on the host both /usr/include/seccomp.h and
/usr/include/libseccomp/seccomp.h.
However, on the LFS side we only have the first one. And since the first
pass is compiled with the LFS includes, it stands to reason that it
actually needs the ../libseccomp/seccomp.h on the LFS side.
I did not tried to make a link as such to see if that was really the
case. This is, because it is only a temporary creation of 'file' where
the seccomp sandbox is of no consequence.
I am OK with the changes to omit seccomp, but when building on an LFS
10.0 system, there were no problems before.
-- Bruce
--
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
