Re: Spring Ahead
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 09:54:44PM -0600, Chuck Rhode wrote: ... so, what are US LFS 5.0 users going to do who've configured UTC=1 in /etc/sysconfig/clock when clocks change to DST in March instead of in April? I presume any users in that situation will remain on UTC ;-) Seriously, 5.0 is distinctly old in LFS terms, and we expect people to rebuild their systems from time to time. For a desktop, 5.0 is so old it isn't funny. The issue exists for anybody using glibc 2.3.6. If you don't want to upgrade, I guess you can build 2.3.6 with a different prefix, install it there, and then copy the updated timezone data files to /usr/share/zoneinfo. Obviously needs to be tested on a non-production system! ĸen -- 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: make - no such file or directory
- Original Message - From: Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: make - no such file or directory Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:28:08 -0800 On 2/1/07, Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 01:56:38AM +0800, Aleksandar Adam wrote: There is one more interesting thing. If I am in folder where man-pages source files reside, there is file README, when I try cat README I got the same output: No such file or directory but README file is in current working directory, and I can see it with ls. Is it the same problem as with make (as above)? Almost certainly. I think it's in the FAQ. What I find odd is that 'cat' and 'ls' both come from coreutils, so if cat is linked against a non-existent libc or ld-linux then ls should also fail to work. Check the permissions on all the directories in /tools. A couple months ago someone was getting the same problem because their /lib directory was 700. They need to be executable by everyone. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Permissions on /tools were 755 I changed till 777, nothing happened, it means that I have to try after Ken's suggestion. Thanks anyway Aleksandar = Section 8 Ski Institute, Canada Ski Leadership Training. 12 Week Intensive Programs on Vancouver Island, Canada. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=0d16b65ad57925fa4940de911c5cb82b -- Powered by Outblaze -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: make - no such file or directory
- Original Message - From: Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: make - no such file or directory Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:31:46 + On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:02:54AM +0800, Aleksandar Adam wrote: Hi, i am trying to install man-pages-2.34 (6.8. Man-pages-2.34 in LFS-book) but when I issue: make install i got the following output: :bash: /tools/bin/make: No such file or directory but there is make file in /tools/bin directory How to solve this? Thanks in advance Aleksandar Hi Aleksandar, I assume you are following the stable book (6.2). The 'No such file or directory' message usually means, if it happens in the LFS book, that a program is linked against a library that is now not accessible. This is the first time you have tried to run 'make' since you entered chroot (linux-libc-headers is unusual in only being installed). From outside chroot, please run 'ldd /tools/bin/make' to see what it is linked against. If it uses anything in /lib or /usr/lib then probably, something went wrong when you were adjusting the toolchain in section 5.7 : did you run the sanity check in the 'Caution' box of section 5.7 ? Alternatively, perhaps you interrupted the build, and did not set things up correctly (e.g. PATH) when you resumed, so that some packages were built with the host's toolchain. ĸen I have tried: ldd /tools/bin/make the output is: tools/bin/ldd: line 124: /tools/bin/make: No such file or directory did you run the sanity check in the 'Caution' box of section 5.7 ? As I can remember it worked well, I have tried one more time and got the correct result: [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2] What shall I do next ? = New York Film Academy Summer Workshops for High School Students in Film Acting. US internal locations. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=86e89e6312970e5940817e00c4755a9a -- Powered by Outblaze -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: make - no such file or directory
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:40:14PM +0800, Aleksandar Adam wrote: I have tried: ldd /tools/bin/make the output is: tools/bin/ldd: line 124: /tools/bin/make: No such file or directory No, from *outside* chroot run the host's ldd on /tools/bin/make (and on /tools/bin/cat, which didn't work, and on /tools/bin/ls which apparently did work). If the library side of things is indeed broken, you can't run the ldd in /tools. From inside chroot, what do you get for 'echo $PATH' and 'echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH' ? If you have a working printenv when inside chroot, what does it show ? 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: make - no such file or directory
- Original Message - No, from *outside* chroot run the host's ldd on /tools/bin/make (and on /tools/bin/cat, which didn't work, and on /tools/bin/ls which apparently did work). If the library side of things is indeed broken, you can't run the ldd in /tools. Sorry, that I didn'r read carefully I have done the following before I have entered chroot environment: ldd /tools/bin/make the output is: linux-gate.so.1 = (0xe000) librt.so.1 = /lib/librt.so.1 (0xb7f05000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7e1b000) libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7e0a000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f15000) inside the chroot environment: echo $PATH the output is /bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin/:/tools/bin echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH shows nothing. printenv TERM=linux PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/tools/bin PWD=/ PS1=\u:\w\$ SHLVL=1 HOME=/root _=/tools/bin/printenv best regards Aleksandar = XanGo Free Case Offer More Join XanGo in our team, receive free case of XanGo other gifts. XanGo Independent Distributor. http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=919cb640b6b84f499e04d6e5d8a3272c -- Powered by Outblaze -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Spring Ahead
On Friday 02 February 2007 12:03, Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 09:54:44PM -0600, Chuck Rhode wrote: ... so, what are US LFS 5.0 users going to do who've configured UTC=1 in /etc/sysconfig/clock when clocks change to DST in March instead of in April? The issue exists for anybody using glibc 2.3.6. If you don't want to upgrade, I guess you can build 2.3.6 with a different prefix, install it there, and then copy the updated timezone data files to /usr/share/zoneinfo. Obviously needs to be tested on a non-production system! Ken's suggestion sounds like a good one, although I would do it slightly differently. Build glibc-2.3.6 with the _same_ prefix as you used on your LFS 5.0 system, but just install to a different location, like this: make install_root=/tmp/glibc236 install (The install_root make variable functions for glibc like DESTDIR does for many other packages.) You can then just replace your /etc/localtime symlink with the appropriate file from the new build, like this: rm -f /etc/localtime cp /tmp/glibc236/usr/share/zoneinfo/America/New_York -- Barius -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: make - no such file or directory
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:36:31PM +0800, Aleksandar Adam wrote: Sorry, that I didn'r read carefully I have done the following before I have entered chroot environment: ldd /tools/bin/make the output is: linux-gate.so.1 = (0xe000) librt.so.1 = /lib/librt.so.1 (0xb7f05000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7e1b000) libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7e0a000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f15000) So, we are back to my original assumption - you have linked at least part of the chapter 5 programs against the host's libraries instead of against libraries in /tools. [ snips the PATH and variables from inside chroot, they are fine ]. You said that you thought the sanity check was ok when you originally ran it, and that it seemed to be ok when you reran it now. We know that 'make' and 'cat' don't work in chroot, but some things (e.g. the shell) seem to work (otherwise you would not get into chroot). For each package in chapter 5, from glibc onwards, take a sample program it installed to /tools and run the host's ldd against it. If the program you pick isn't a dynamic executable, pick another. If it shows links to /lib or /usr/lib it was built incorrectly and you won't be able to run it in chroot. When you have that information, you can identify which packages you need to rebuild. I'm still guessing that you interrupted the build at least once, and that on one or more times something wasn't set up correctly when you resumed the build. I'm still unsettled by your remark that you could see the README with 'ls' although cat didn't work - maybe you meant the host's ls, but if not please also run the host's ldd over /tools/bin/ls as well as /tools/bin/cat. If the interrupted build explanation doesn't ring true t you, is there something unusual about your host, e.g. it runs selinux, or you used sudo to become the lfs user and are restricted in what you can do as 'lfs', or anything else weird ? ĸen -- 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: Spring Ahead
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 04:44:00PM +0100, Barius Drubeck wrote: Ken's suggestion sounds like a good one, although I would do it slightly differently. Build glibc-2.3.6 with the _same_ prefix as you used on your LFS 5.0 system, but just install to a different location, like this: make install_root=/tmp/glibc236 install I've never used install_root, but that sounds like a better way to do it. The specific problem is that the construction of the zoneinfo files is fairly well hidden, at least in my logs, and I think they are a product of make install. Of course, if they are there after 'make' then it is even easier. ĸen -- 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: make - no such file or directory
On 2/2/07, Aleksandar Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] did you run the sanity check in the 'Caution' box of section 5.7 ? As I can remember it worked well, I have tried one more time and got the correct result: [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2] This means that now you're compiling programs that will use the dynamic linker in /tools, but you might not have been doing this the whole time in Ch. 5 (like Kens says). What's the output of $ readelf -l /tools/bin/make | grep ld-linux It should be [Requesting program interpreter: /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2] -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: make - no such file or directory
On 2/2/07, Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, we are back to my original assumption - you have linked at least part of the chapter 5 programs against the host's libraries instead of against libraries in /tools. Try this out (probably from outside the chroot): for p in /tools/bin/*; do echo -n $p: readelf -l $p 2/dev/null | grep ld-linux done Does it say /lib/ld-linux.so.2 for anything? It should say /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 for everything (or very close to it). -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: make - no such file or directory
-- Powered by Outblaze -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Spring Ahead
Ken Moffat wrote this on Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:03:16AM +. My reply is below. On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 09:54:44PM -0600, Chuck Rhode wrote: ... so, what are US LFS 5.0 users going to do who've configured UTC=1 in /etc/sysconfig/clock when clocks change to DST in March instead of in April? For a desktop, 5.0 is so old it isn't funny. The issue exists for anybody using glibc 2.3.6. Gosh, you talk like Bill Gates! One of the pleasures of the LFS approach is that one acquires a lot of experience doing piecemeal upgrades. Years ago, when I was employed, I applied software upgrades to OS/1100 on Sperry-Univac and Unisys mainframes. Then Unisys began issuing base releases of forty or fifty replacement components at once. Newer component patch levels were always available, but base-release levels had been tested together and were guaranteed to work together. As soon as they started doing that, I was out of a job and haven't worked since. Needless to say, I am not a fan of the all at once concept, although I can see how lower out-of-pocket cost benefits customers of proprietary software houses like Unisys, IBM, and Microsoft. Full disclosure: I do think the Ubuntu live CD is kind of cute, and I am tempted to try installing that instead of LFS next time if I can suppress my visceral abhorrence of packaged software. -- .. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA .. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX .. 8° — Wind W 21 mph -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Spring Ahead
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:30:04PM -0600, Chuck Rhode wrote: Ken Moffat wrote this on Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:03:16AM +. My reply is below. For a desktop, 5.0 is so old it isn't funny. The issue exists for anybody using glibc 2.3.6. Gosh, you talk like Bill Gates! Ouch. Still, at least I'm only SPAM-LOW so far in your system. Seriously, I have something a little newer than 5.1 on one of my boxes (a few minor version upgrades, with recent 2.6 kernels and static devices). I had occasion to use that system a couple of weeks ago when the power supply in my server failed (my other boxes wanted dhcp). The versions were at-latest gnome-2.2 and kde-3.1.something. The browser pre-dated firefox. Ignoring the lack of support for many of the versions I had used, the user interface felt old and clunky. If you can keep your applications up to date without rebuilding the underlying LFS, then good for you, and I'm sure it works ok. Maybe your systems were more advanced than mine, but I've only recently achieved as much functionality as I want on my desktops. The thing is, once you start building from source, you are responsible for your own upgrades and security fixes. With the recent speed of development in desktop applications, two years is a long time to go without rebuilding. I see you've upgraded applications, so why not refresh the whole system - I can guarantee there's a lot still to learn about how the system is put together. Full disclosure: I do think the Ubuntu live CD is kind of cute, and I am tempted to try installing that instead of LFS next time if I can suppress my visceral abhorrence of packaged software. I have every confidence that you'll learn to hate synaptic and the various 'verses, but it does form an adequate host system for LFS ;-) ĸen -- 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: SPAM-LOW: Re: Spring Ahead
Thanks, guys, for pointing out *glibc*.
I've taken a quick look, and I don't believe one needs to build it
merely to update timezones. Please tell me what you think of this:
These instructions make assumptions about where things are located
based on the LFS 5.0 Book. They are a stepwise approach to fixing
time-zone information to comply with new daylight-saving time (DST)
begin/end dates mandated this year (2007) by the United States
Congress in 2005. Those not affected by any of this (You know who you
are, Canucks not excepted.) can ignore what follows.
==
Step A
==
What time zone do you *think* you're in? Run this quiz to find out:
tzselect
This prints the name of the time-zone information file relevant to
your location. This is a binary file containing coded data.
==
Step B
==
Have you set the TZ environment variable?
echo $TZ
This prints the name of your configured time zone. It must be
identical to the result from Step A. If not, thou shalt not go on to
Step C. Stop now!
==
Step C
==
Do you have the same localtime file installed that you think you do?
cmp /etc/localtime /usr/share/zoneinfo/$TZ
If these two files compare equal (no difference reported), go on to
Step D; otherwise, thou hast screwed something up and thou shouldst
not.
==
Step D
==
Are you already compliant?
zdump -v -c 2008 $TZ | tail -6 | head -4
This should print out the dates of the 2007 vernal and autumnal time changes.
If they are in March and November, all is well. You have
up-to-date time-zone info on your system, and there is absolutely no
need for you to follow any further with this. Stop now!
If they are in April and October, you are at risk of being an hour
late after the middle of March, according to Congress. Pursue
legality by following on to Step E.
==
Step E
==
Can you recreate this localtime file (just in case)?
Untar your old *glibc*.
cd /usr/src
tar -zxvf glibc-2.3.2.tar.gz
cd glibc-2.3.2/timezone
zic -d /tmp/timezone northamerica
cmp /etc/localtime /tmp/timezone/$TZ
Thou shalt go on to Step F if, and only if, these two files compare
equal (no difference reported); otherwise, you can't get back here if
you need to.
==
Step F
==
Can you create something completely different?
Download and untar a new *glibc*.
rm -rf /tmp/timezone
cd /usr/src
tar -zxvf glibc-2.3.6.tar.gz
cd glibc-2.3.6/timezone
zic -d /tmp/timezone northamerica
cmp /etc/localtime /tmp/timezone/$TZ
Thou shalt go on to Step G if, and only if, these two files compare
different; otherwise, there's no point to this exercise.
==
Step G
==
cd /usr/share/zoneinfo
mkdir bak
cp -a {America,Atlantic,Pacific} bak/
cd /usr/src/glibc-2.3.6/timezone
zic -d /usr/share/zoneinfo northamerica
cp -a /usr/share/zoneinfo/$TZ /etc/localtime
At this point it's too late to go back, except that you might be able
to restore the files in the /usr/share/zoneinfo/bak directory to their
rightful place (or recompile the time-zone info from the old *glibc*)
and then make a yet another copy of /etc/localtime.
Go back to Step D to check the final configuration for compliance.
--
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 8° — Wind W 21 mph
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Spring Ahead
On 2/2/07, Chuck Rhode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, guys, for pointing out *glibc*. Wow, thank you! I had no idea about how zdump or zic worked. I've taken a quick look, and I don't believe one needs to build it merely to update timezones. Please tell me what you think of this: These instructions make assumptions about where things are located based on the LFS 5.0 Book. They are a stepwise approach to fixing time-zone information to comply with new daylight-saving time (DST) begin/end dates mandated this year (2007) by the United States Congress in 2005. Those not affected by any of this (You know who you are, Canucks not excepted.) can ignore what follows. This certainly looks accurate to the current book from my perspective. And it's useful in general not just for glibc-2.3.2 vs glibc-2.3.6. The zoneinfo files could be updated at any time, so it's good to know how to generate them if you're not on the bleeding edge of glibc. Chuck, I think it would be great if you could put these instructions on the LFS wiki. Hmm, it doesn't appear to be as fleshed out as the BLFS wiki. Let me get back to you on that... -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Problems rendering the book
Hi all, I'm the coordinator for the italian translation of the LFS book. I'm trying to render the book (LFS 6.2) starting from the xml sources, but I have problems. The release of the stylesheets called (1.69.1) is not present anymore in the docbook site, since they're passed to the 1.72.0. I have installed this one, and changed the adresses in the xsl files to http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/1.72.0 but now I have the following problem after the make command: xsltproc --xinclude --nonet -stringparam profile.condition html \ -stringparam chunk.quietly 0 -stringparam base.dir /home/giulio/ILDP/LFS/LFS-BOOK-6.2-IT-HTML/ \ stylesheets/lfs-chunked.xsl index.xml I/O error : Attempt to load network entity http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/1.72.0/xhtml/docbook.xsl [...] warning: failed to load external entity http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/1.72.0/xhtml/profile-chunk-code.xsl; compilation error: file stylesheets/lfs-chunked.xsl line 27 element include xsl:include : unable to load http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/1.72.0/xhtml/profile-chunk-code.xsl make: *** [lfs] Error 5 All the addresses are correct. If I try to load manually the same files from the browser it works. Anyone could help me? Thank you -- Giulio - Linux user #356310 LFS user #11031 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
inetutils-1.5 Bug?
Im installing the Development LFS and tried installing Inetutils-1.5 and I get this error when using make command: telnet.o: In function `init_term': /sources/inetutils-1.5/telnet/telnet.c:746: undefined reference to `tgetent' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [telnet] Error 1 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: inetutils-1.5 Bug?
- Original Message - From: Galaxy Travel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: inetutils-1.5 Bug? Im installing the Development LFS and tried installing Inetutils-1.5 and I get this error when using make command: telnet.o: In function `init_term': /sources/inetutils-1.5/telnet/telnet.c:746: undefined reference to `tgetent' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [telnet] Error 1 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page I was using Ncurses-5.6 on mistake, This maybe a bug in 5.6. The book has the All Programs/Ncurses not available at Link. At that location only 5.6 is available. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Spring Ahead
On 2/3/07, Ken Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 04:44:00PM +0100, Barius Drubeck wrote: Ken's suggestion sounds like a good one, although I would do it slightly differently. Build glibc-2.3.6 with the _same_ prefix as snip do it. The specific problem is that the construction of the zoneinfo files is fairly well hidden, at least in my logs, and I think they are a product of make install. Of course, if they are there after 'make' then it is even easier. man zic (timezone compiler) just take your existing zoneinfo source, add the new rules, and compile the files - no need for new glibc install ;) -- -- - Steve Crosby -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: inetutils-1.5 Bug?
On 2/2/07, Galaxy Travel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im installing the Development LFS and tried installing Inetutils-1.5 and I get this error when using make command: telnet.o: In function `init_term': /sources/inetutils-1.5/telnet/telnet.c:746: undefined reference to `tgetent' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [telnet] Error 1 tgetent should come from ncurses. Can you show the actual command before this? If it's not trying to link to ncurses, then it is a bug. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: inetutils-1.5 Bug?
- Original Message - From: Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:30 AM Subject: Re: inetutils-1.5 Bug? On 2/2/07, Galaxy Travel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im installing the Development LFS and tried installing Inetutils-1.5 and I get this error when using make command: telnet.o: In function `init_term': /sources/inetutils-1.5/telnet/telnet.c:746: undefined reference to `tgetent' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [telnet] Error 1 tgetent should come from ncurses. Can you show the actual command before this? If it's not trying to link to ncurses, then it is a bug. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Well I installed Ncurses-5.6 and followed the book up to inetutils I hit make and got that error, When I installed Ncurses-5.5 it didnt make that error, So im either thinking its a bug in Ncurses-5.6 or Inetutils. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Glibc-2.3.4-20040701 make check error
Hi,
I'm having th following problem when running make check after running make
on glibc-2.3.4-20040701
using LFS LiveCD 6.0 on a Dell optiplex P3 with 64mb RAM
---
scripts/check-c++-types.sh: line 44: 28733 broken pipecat
EOF
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include sys/resource.h
#include unistd.h
void foo ($t) { }
EOF
g++: /dev/fd/63: No such file or directory
g++: warning: '-x c++' after last input file has no effect
g++: no input files
make[1]: *** [/glibc-build/c++-types-check.out] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/glibc-2.3.4-20040701'
make: *** [check] Error 2
---
I have previously run 'make' followed by 'make check', and had errors, but
every time I ran make check I got different errors, so I deleted the
glibc-build directory and started again. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Thanks
RC
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc-2.3.4-20040701 make check error
Hi,
just ran 'make check' again and it appears to have run correctly!!!
problem solved hopefully!!
Weird
RC
- Original Message
From: Richard Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2007 7:45:26 AM
Subject: Glibc-2.3.4-20040701 make check error
Hi,
I'm having th following problem when running make check after running make
on glibc-2.3.4-20040701
using LFS LiveCD 6.0 on a Dell optiplex P3 with 64mb RAM
---
scripts/check-c++-types.sh: line 44: 28733 broken pipecat
EOF
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include sys/resource.h
#include unistd.h
void foo ($t) { }
EOF
g++: /dev/fd/63: No such file or directory
g++: warning: '-x c++' after last input file has no effect
g++: no input files
make[1]: *** [/glibc-build/c++-types-check.out] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/glibc-2.3.4-20040701'
make: *** [check] Error 2
---
I have previously run 'make' followed by 'make check', and had errors, but
every time I ran make check I got different errors, so I deleted the
glibc-build directory and started again. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Thanks
RC
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
