Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)!
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 19:43 +0300, Эмиль Кранц wrote: By trial and error I have found that any action that takes more than one SBU in LFS is better off with -j1. BLFS packages are more agreeable with -j2 switch. On my dual core machine only kernel compiles flawlessly with -j2 switch. Binutils and compiled against them gcc and glibc were all faulty with -j2. I have discovered it early enough, at the entering the chroot environment. It may be a peculiarity of my abacus, of course. However, I'd stick with recommendation not to use -j2 in production environment. That surprises me. Runnning tests in parallel may be flaky, but the actual compilation step should be fine. Every package in the book built fine with -j6, last time I tried (on hardware capable of it). Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)!
I expect every chip has its peculiarities, and my CPUs are not an exception. I failed to build LFS-6.8 (if I remember correctly, it was before 7.0 for sure) with -j2, however all worked fine with -j1. I haven't tried building in parallel on my later builds though, so maybe I should. On the other hand, almost all software after binutils-gcc-glibc builds in a matter of minutes anyway, mostly under one minute, not counting the test suites. And tests as we see from reports are better run with j1. Good time for brushing up on man pages while waiting, I think. In BLFS all packages except glib and mplayer were built with -j2, no problem EK On 16 May 2012 13:29, Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote: On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 19:43 +0300, Эмиль Кранц wrote: By trial and error I have found that any action that takes more than one SBU in LFS is better off with -j1. BLFS packages are more agreeable with -j2 switch. On my dual core machine only kernel compiles flawlessly with -j2 switch. Binutils and compiled against them gcc and glibc were all faulty with -j2. I have discovered it early enough, at the entering the chroot environment. It may be a peculiarity of my abacus, of course. However, I'd stick with recommendation not to use -j2 in production environment. That surprises me. Runnning tests in parallel may be flaky, but the actual compilation step should be fine. Every package in the book built fine with -j6, last time I tried (on hardware capable of it). Simon. -- 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
Re: [lfs-support] glibc-2.15 make error undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start' undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_end'
On 5/16/2012 12:22 AM, lei huang wrote: help help!!! On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM, lei huangcode.huang...@gmail.com wrote: system: centos5.8 linux2.6.18 gcc44 lfs: binutils-2.22 gcc-4.7.0 glibc-2.15 lfs-man Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20120513 build glibc erro: gcc44 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -static -o /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/elf/sln /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/csu/crt1.o /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/csu/crti.o `gcc44 --print-file-name=crtbegin.o` /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/elf/sln.o -Wl,--start-group /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/libc.a -lgcc -lgcc_eh -Wl,--end-group `gcc44 --print-file-name=crtend.o` /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/csu/crtn.o /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/libc.a(elf-init.o): In function `__libc_csu_irel': /myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/csu/elf-init.c:88: undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_end' /myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/csu/elf-init.c:88: undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start' /myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/libc.a(elf-init.o): In function `elf_irela': /myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/csu/../sysdeps/x86_64/dl-irel.h:43: undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start' /myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/csu/../sysdeps/x86_64/dl-irel.h:40: undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start' /myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/csu/../sysdeps/x86_64/dl-irel.h:40: undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start' /myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/csu/../sysdeps/x86_64/dl-irel.h:40: undefined reference to `__rela_iplt_start' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/myos/user/tools_src/build-glibc/elf/sln] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15/elf' make[1]: *** [elf/others] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/myos/user/tools_src/glibc-2.15' how to fix it?? Thanks, huanglei This will sound very mean, but: Learn CentOS inside and out first. Find all the different ways it works. /Then/ try building LFS again. Or, try a copy+paste method, and keep an eye out for replace_me, which need the appropriate value for the system in the line (pointy brackets not required). Either way, trying to customize LFS from the start doesn't seem to be working on your system. It usually ends in failure if you're new to the book (and if you're new to Linux). Elly -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)!
From: bl8r1...@tut.by Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:33:12 +0300 To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.1: 6.37. Automake-1.11.3 (TEST FAILURE)! I expect every chip has its peculiarities, and my CPUs are not an exception. I failed to build LFS-6.8 (if I remember correctly, it was before 7.0 for sure) with -j2, however all worked fine with -j1. I haven't tried building in parallel on my later builds though, so maybe I should. On the other hand, almost all software after binutils-gcc-glibc builds in a matter of minutes anyway, mostly under one minute, not counting the test suites. And tests as we see from reports are better run with j1. Good time for brushing up on man pages while waiting, I think. In BLFS all packages except glib and mplayer were built with -j2, no problem EK In my machine, LFS-7.1 compiled good with -j2 switch except automake in section 6. however, so far! -Yasser On 16 May 2012 13:29, Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote: On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 19:43 +0300, Эмиль Кранц wrote: By trial and error I have found that any action that takes more than one SBU in LFS is better off with -j1. BLFS packages are more agreeable with -j2 switch. On my dual core machine only kernel compiles flawlessly with -j2 switch. Binutils and compiled against them gcc and glibc were all faulty with -j2. I have discovered it early enough, at the entering the chroot environment. It may be a peculiarity of my abacus, of course. However, I'd stick with recommendation not to use -j2 in production environment. That surprises me. Runnning tests in parallel may be flaky, but the actual compilation step should be fine. Every package in the book built fine with -j6, last time I tried (on hardware capable of it). Simon. -- 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 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
