Re: internet connection with liveccd
steve crosby wrote: Another option is to apply the FC2\3 workaround permanently - change the book instructions to download, compile and use e2fsprogs from LFS to create the LFS partition always, and never use the host tools. Although that would work for all e2fs problems, I can forsee other FC related tool issues, so might not be as useful as it could be. However, at least it would be documented. That's more than we can say right now. It might miss other issues and those should simply be added as they are discovered. Yet Another Option: Have a Host Quirks page - document known Host based issues and suggested workarounds - we could maintain that as an online only page If such a page is created, it might as well be part of the book itself. This kind of information would be good to have available right away since you might be off-line while building. Granted, chances of somebody being off-line while building from a regular distribution are slim in this day and age, but not impossible. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Scripting error - command doesn't expand properly
On 7/23/05, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This works fine for most packages, but when variables get set, the
command truncates after the variable.
So set the variables separately:
DEFAULT_POSIX2_VERSION=199902
cmd1=./configure --prefix=/tools
...
$cmd1
Or put it in a function:
cmd1{
DEFAULT_POSIX2_VERSION=199902 ./configure --prefix=/tools
}
...
cmd1
--
Lennon Victor Cook
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: internet connection with liveccd
Gerard Beekmans wrote: steve crosby wrote: Another option is to apply the FC2\3 workaround permanently - change the book instructions to download, compile and use e2fsprogs from LFS to create the LFS partition always, and never use the host tools. Although that would work for all e2fs problems, I can forsee other FC related tool issues, so might not be as useful as it could be. However, at least it would be documented. That's more than we can say right now. It might miss other issues and those should simply be added as they are discovered. Err, I thought this particular issue was already covered adequately by the Note box at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1/chapter02/creatingfilesystem.html. Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: internet connection with liveccd
On 7/25/05, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gerard Beekmans wrote: steve crosby wrote: Another option is to apply the FC2\3 workaround permanently - change the book instructions to download, compile and use e2fsprogs from LFS to create the LFS partition always, and never use the host tools. Although that would work for all e2fs problems, I can forsee other FC related tool issues, so might not be as useful as it could be. However, at least it would be documented. That's more than we can say right now. It might miss other issues and those should simply be added as they are discovered. Err, I thought this particular issue was already covered adequately by the Note box at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1/chapter02/creatingfilesystem.html. Yes, but given the frequency of the issue with recent FC releases, it may be better to *always* apply the workaround, regardless of the host - which will eliminate the problem completely. We can then add other workarounds as required. At least, that's what I think Gerard meant. From an education standpoint, it gives the reader exposure to the c;m;mi model eary (before they start building LFS), although we already expect that level of knowledge from an LFS reader. -- - Steve Crosby -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: internet connection with liveccd
Matthew Burgess wrote: Err, I thought this particular issue was already covered adequately by the Note box at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1/chapter02/creatingfilesystem.html. My apologies. I even checked the SVN version of the book before I wrote that email yesterday to make sure it was there as I thought it was. I checked that page and I didn't see the Note box. It is kind of big and obvious but somehow I overlooked it. Consider it my duh moment. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: internet connection with liveccd
steve crosby wrote: Yes, but given the frequency of the issue with recent FC releases, it may be better to *always* apply the workaround, regardless of the host - which will eliminate the problem completely. We can then add other workarounds as required. At least, that's what I think Gerard meant. That's not quite what i meant. I as just blind and completely missed the Note box for some reason. Always applying that workaround isn't something I would suggest myself. It's a workaround in the end, not an issue everybody deals with. I would consider it a little sloppy to default to that method instead of giving the user a real choice in the matter. Of course when I say that I'm not taking into account ease of use vs. ease of our support network. That is definitely a valid point to take into account. If somebody would like to take that point and run away with it, please. From an education standpoint, it gives the reader exposure to the c;m;mi model eary (before they start building LFS), although we already expect that level of knowledge from an LFS reader. Yes I tend to agree if they don't know about that by the time they start with the LFS book, there's a bigger problem. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Backup
All, I've just finished LFS 6.0 (Yes, I know it isn't the latest. I started on it a few days before 6.1 was announced.) I have a question. I built the LFS on a notebook with a Pentiumn M. I made an image of the LFS system using dd and restored it on a desktop with a Pentiumn 4. The desktop appears to function normally. I haven't started building BLFS yet on the desktop, but was concerned about the toolchain. Will there be a problem building BLFS on the desktop since the toolchain was built on the portable? I didn't optimize any of the packages. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Backup
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Richard Hamilton wrote: I built the LFS on a notebook with a Pentiumn M. I made an image of the LFS system using dd and restored it on a desktop with a Pentiumn 4. The desktop appears to function normally. I haven't started building BLFS yet on the desktop, but was concerned about the toolchain. Will there be a problem building BLFS on the desktop since the toolchain was built on the portable? I didn't optimize any of the packages. I imagine it will be fine. The base toolchain probably thinks it's on gcc's definition of i686 (that is, a pentium II with the cmov instruction). The problems people get are caused by optimisations for a specific architecture - sometimes in the kernel. The compiler from LFS-6.0 probably predates the pentium M and doesn't offer any special optimisations for it. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: firefox, mozilla, thunderbird segfault
DJ Lucas wrote:
Christopher Beppler wrote:
/usr/lib/firefox-1.0.6/run-mozilla.sh: line 159: 5403 Segmentation
fault $prog ${1+$@}
Reread the configuring X section...specicifically the Adding TrueType
Fonts to X section.
I have done this now... but the same error occurs further on... Shall I
use XFree86 instead of Xorg? I will try this now.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: question about the kernel and user lfs
Hi again, Well, finally I decided to test a starting, even if md5sum didn't give the result I waited. And it worked! But now, I need a very small help please, if it's not a problem. I'll look at the manual on the CD if there's one, but waiting, I ask. I've a problem: I'm blind. Once the CD started, I'd like to mount a disk, copy a braille program and run it. Before that, I have to write a command. So, could someone tell me what is displayed on the screen immediately after the CD starting? What do I have to do? Is it a graphical mode? What do I have to do to get a prompt and be able to write, mount my floppy disk and run my program? Thanks and sorry for my questions, after this, I start lfs in particular, when that problem is solved. Sincerely, JP -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Backup
Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Richard Hamilton wrote: I built the LFS on a notebook with a Pentiumn M. I made an image of the LFS system using dd and restored it on a desktop with a Pentiumn 4. The desktop appears to function normally. I haven't started building BLFS yet on the desktop, but was concerned about the toolchain. Will there be a problem building BLFS on the desktop since the toolchain was built on the portable? I didn't optimize any of the packages. I imagine it will be fine. The base toolchain probably thinks it's on gcc's definition of i686 (that is, a pentium II with the cmov instruction). The problems people get are caused by optimisations for a specific architecture - sometimes in the kernel. The compiler from LFS-6.0 probably predates the pentium M and doesn't offer any special optimisations for it. Ken I guess I can run the config.guess in the binutils package to doublecheck. Thanks. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: question about the kernel and user lfs
Jean-Philippe Mengual wrote: I've a problem: I'm blind. Once the CD started, I'd like to mount a disk, copy a braille program and run it. Before that, I have to write a command. So, could someone tell me what is displayed on the screen immediately after the CD starting? What do I have to do? Is it a graphical mode? Hi JP. You may want to try the 6.0 version of the LFS LiveCD as that one had a speakup enabled kernel that would output text to an audio device or braille terminal. I got help with setting that up from another blind LFS user, but unfortunately I've been out of contact with him lately and this feature kind of slipped through on the last CD. So you could try the lfslivecd-x86-6.0-1.iso and see if that works for you. Otherwise, to use the current cd and mount the floppy disk you would have to do the following: Boot the CD and wait about 5-10 minutes to make sure the console has come up, unless you have some other way of telling when it's done booting. After that hit 'Enter' once to activate the console, you'll then be at a root prompt. Then insert your floppy disk, and if your floppy is a standard floppy drive and not, for example, an IDE floppy drive, you would type 'mount /dev/fd0 /media/floppy' After that you should be able to 'cd /media/floppy' and run the program there. Hope this helps! Also, now that I know there are still blind users who would use the LiveCD perhaps we can try supporting the speakup and braille terminals again in the near future... -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
gcc fails tests (lots) in LFS 6.1 Ch. 6
I'm in Chapter 6 of LFS 6.1 after the chroot, and I'm having a lot of errors in the gcc build. glibc and binutils both passed all of their tests. I attached the summary since it's kind of long. g++ seems normal, but the gcc tests fail consistently in the pch subdirectory. I'm not sure what this means, but it seems bad. Does anyone have any ideas? I've stayed faithful to the book to my knowledge. Thanks, Dan gcc-test-summ Description: Binary data -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Scripting error - command doesn't expand properly
Try this:
cmd1=`echo This is command 1`
cmd2=`echo This is command 2`
time { echo $cmd1 echo $cmd2; }
This resulted in the command being echo'd back. I believe what you meant was
cmd1=`This is command 1`
cmd2=`This is command 2`
time{ echo $cmd1 echo $cmd2; }
That is what I was looking for. Thanks.
the use of echo in that scenario is imporatant. Of course, if you're
only using the command and variable *once* in the entire scriptlet, it
may make sense to just hard-wire the command into the time statement.
Absolutely. Really, the reason why I want to store the command is
because I want to echo the command and then run it, so when I look at
the log I'll know the arguments that were actually run. So what I
want is something like this
{ time { \
echo Configuring $PROGRAM
echo $cmd1
$cmd1
...
}
} 21 | tee $LOG
It just seemed convenient to store the parameters in a variable, but I
decided to just hardcode everything to be safe. Maybe what I really
want is a Makefile. Thanks anyway.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: GCC4 ch. 6: compiler produces unrunnable binaries
Matt Bartley wrote: I've copied the binary from Debian, which isn't statically linked, but it works anyway. Please install a statically linked version inside chroot. If it's a dynamically linked binary it'll have to use your LFS' Glibc libraries. If there is an issue with your Glibc installation, which looks like it might be the case, strace may not function right. strace: exec: No such file or directory. That's a typical indication from strace that there is something wrong with the Glibc installation. The gcc4 branch. Version GCC4-20050721 to be more precise. Unfortunately I haven't done much of anything with that GCC version. I can throw out some wild guesses like how GCC4 and Glibc might need to be build differently from what the current LFS books says, but I really couldn't answer it. If there is a known issue with how GCC4 compiles Glibc (or how the current instructions in LFS might be buggy for this application and miscompile Glibc) you should be able to find it in the mailinglist archives. -- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: GCC4 ch. 6: compiler produces unrunnable binaries
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gerard Beekmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Bartley wrote: I've copied the binary from Debian, which isn't statically linked, but it works anyway. Please install a statically linked version inside chroot. If it's a dynamically linked binary it'll have to use your LFS' Glibc libraries. If there is an issue with your Glibc installation, which looks like it might be the case, strace may not function right. I just tried it with a static linked version of strace and got the same result. # ./strace ./a.out strace: exec: No such file or directory execve(./a.out, [./a.out], [/* 8 vars */]) = 0 couldn't answer it. If there is a known issue with how GCC4 compiles Glibc (or how the current instructions in LFS might be buggy for this application and miscompile Glibc) you should be able to find it in the mailinglist archives. I've monitored the mailing lists and have seen nothing else about this. There was a recent report that the gcc4 branch was buildable up to kbd, much further than I got, and a patch was posted to get past kbd. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: gcc fails tests (lots) in LFS 6.1 Ch. 6
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in Chapter 6 of LFS 6.1 after the chroot, and I'm having a lot of errors in the gcc build. glibc and binutils both passed all of their tests. I attached the summary since it's kind of long. g++ seems normal, but the gcc tests fail consistently in the pch subdirectory. I'm not sure what this means, but it seems bad. Does anyone have any ideas? I've stayed faithful to the book to my knowledge. In my experience, this happens if the kernel running on your host system is linux-2.6.12.x, and it happens building either LFS-6.1 or LFS-development. I've tried booting my host system with kernel linux-2.6.11.12 and building LFS up through chapter 6 gcc, but not yet installing gcc. The tests appear normal. Then I rebooted my host system into linux-2.6.12, chrooted back into the LFS tree, and then re-ran the gcc test suite (with the same previously compiled binaries). Then the test failures happen. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: gcc fails tests (lots) in LFS 6.1 Ch. 6
Test failures with the 2.6.12 kernel tree was brought up and explained the other day by Greg Schafer on the lfs-dev list. Here's a copy of said email for easy reference: I didn't realize that would be an issue if the host had a 2.6.12 kernel, since LFS 6.1 use 2.6.11. To cut to the chase, is it safe to continue despite these failures since I will be later running 2.6.11, or should I restart the build with an older kernel? My host system is Fedora Core 3. Thanks. And I should add now that I think you guys are doing an excellent job. I've come to learn about and enjoy my linux system so much more since I started following LFS. Dan Nicholson -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
docbook2html
Module-init-tools installation chashed becouse 'docbook2html' not found. What package contains this utility? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
