On 2/4/21 8:11 PM, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
On 2021-02-04 15:19 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I am OK with the changes to omit seccomp, but when building on an LFS
10.0 system, there were no problems before.
Hi Bruce,
On LFS/BLFS if libseccomp.so is installed, /usr/include/seccomp.h would be also
installed. But on many commerical distros (Debian or Fedora) libseccomp.so is
in "libseccomp" package, but the header is in "libseccomp-devel" package. So
someone may install "libseccomp", but not "libseccomp-devel".
And, File building system is so stupid that if libseccomp.so exists, it will use
libseccomp anyway. Then the build will fail because it can't find the header.
find /usr/lib -name 'libseccomp.*'
/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libseccomp.so.2.3.3
/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libseccomp.so.2
find /usr/include -name 'seccomp.h'
/usr/include/linux/seccomp.h
file builds just fine on this host.
So does the entire LFS and the BLFS packages that I use.
Of course I am not building "by the book" because I use a package manager
and the book just will not work. I follow the build sequence and build
instructions, but have to greatly modify the steps in book because of
the liberties
taken by the book overwriting files. The package manager will not allow
that.
As I stated before this appears to be a distribution flaw
--
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
