Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for libgmp.la in the wrong place
From lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Sat Dec 7 23:57:02 2013 From: William Harrington kb0...@berzerkula.org To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:02:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for libgmp.la in the wrong place On Dec 7, 2013, at 5:14 PM, akhiezer wrote: - r u _trolling_ ? No, I've used slackware since version 3, and I'm a developer of CLFS and help with LFS support. You've used Slackware since version 3 and you don't know where rc.sshd is called from, and don't even try the likes of 'grep -irl ssh /etc'? Something does not add-up there. Or did your non-perl install also not install rc.sshd /or any calls to it. You're a developer of CLFS, and you can't install Slackware 14.1 properly. I'll bear that in mind. But again, something does not add up there. Keep on the topic here. It's about the first pass of GCC. You are the person that went off-topic on a stream-of-unconsciousness about your ballsed-up attempt at the simplest of tasks in getting a slackware-14.1 host-os in place. Now you attemptedly-disingenuously - and dishonestly - try to pretend that it's others that are off-topic. I addressed **topics** that **you** put in **your** email message. Your 'Keep on ...' note above, would presumably apply to said message of yours: so you're being ... what, inconsistent, hypocritical, ... what is it? I installed Slackware 14 to try to replicate the issue, and I couldn't. Yes, you couldn't install Slackware 14 properly, and lo and behold you couldn't replicate the issue. It's worth bearing in mind how well and straightforwardly can things work, when even a modicum of care, skill, c is taken to do them properly. Returning to the topic that you spent several paragraphs of your message on: let me guess, your sl-14.x adventure spent some time on a self-chosen 'EXPERT'-option path; you may want to try the 'FULL'-option path - there's a phonetic aide-memoire there that might help (but you do need to remember it ... _properly_). rgds, akhiezer Sincerely, William Harrington -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for libgmp.la in the wrong place
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 19:38:39 +
From: Hazel Russman hazeldeb...@googlemail.com
To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for
libgmp.la in the wrong place
.
.
I have now established that gmp was never installed on my host system.
I had the binaries because they come with the elflibs package, but not
the ancillary files. So I installed the library explicitly and tried
again. This time the gcc build went to completion but when I looked in
the .la files afterwards, this is what I found:
In /gcc-build/mpfr/src/libmpfr.la
dependency_libs=' /usr/lib64/libgmp.la'
In /gcc-build/mpc/src/libmpc.la
dependency_libs=' /usr/lib64/libmpfr.la /usr/lib64/libgmp.la -lm'
Now this, to my mind, is the real error. My unorthodox setup showed it
up by crashing the build, but what is the software doing looking
in /usr/lib64 in the first place? I thought the whole point of giving
the compiler a target was to trick it into thinking it was compiling
for a different computer so that it wouldn't look for stuff on the
host system. And it can't be anything to do with an LD_LIBRARY_PATH
variable because the lfs user hasn't got one.
On a full Slackware install, no one would notice this. Who is going to
root around in archive files looking for bad dependency paths when
everything has gone smoothly?
.
.
Hmmm. Three slightly-indirect observations (hopefully not too off-topic ;) ):
--
* can you post the output, please, of each of:
$ ls -latrF /usr/lib64/lib{gmp,mpc,mpfr}*
$ md5sum /usr/lib64/lib{gmp,mpc,mpfr}*
* did you try a build with the (somewhere-)suggested fallback of
'make -j 1 ...' ?
* when building from a really customised host-os, one needs to be prepared to
'get forensic' if necessary: else it's best to build from a (small-c)
conservative base. You might, if not already, want to at least skim-read the
main docs in the gcc/mpc/mpfr/gmp source-trees, not least to see if anything
'jumps out' at you wrt how you've got your host-os setup. You might also
want to use the likes of strace to see if/where/how the host-os /usr/lib64
stuff is being accessed.
--
hth,
akh
p.s. Re the wider picture here: when putting together the kind of host-os
system that you describe, it can be useful to use the dependencies info from
lfs/blfs (with a judicious number of grains of salt), plus an (again,
judicious) admixture of the command-lists on the lfs/blfs pages and in the
'SlackBuild' files (e.g.
'http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/slackware/slackware-14.1/source/ap/ghostscript/'
). Not assuming you've not already done or considered similar; just mention
it in case not and in case of use.
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for libgmp.la in the wrong place
On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:52 PM, William Harrington wrote: Also, doing a normal install of Slackware 14.1 didn't even install perl. I had to manually tag packages I wanted then I had a successful install. I think their install process is broken. I also had to add rc.sshd to / etc/rc.d/rc.M. Turns out I had to reselect the slackware64 14.1 iso image in vmware then my normal install of A AP D K L and N went fine. The minimal list of packages will get you in the right position. Take care to peruse the list I gave for a path to a minimal install. Even if you remove some libraries from your install, some binaries may still require them as NEEDED (readelf -d) and will not be found. Sincerely, WIlliam Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] GCC build first pass: mpc build looks for libgmp.la in the wrong place
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 13:48:41 +
lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer) wrote:
Hmmm. Three slightly-indirect observations (hopefully not too
off-topic ;) ): --
* can you post the output, please, of each of:
$ ls -latrF /usr/lib64/lib{gmp,mpc,mpfr}*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 77656 Feb 8 2011 /usr/lib64/libmpc.so.2.0.0*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 968 Feb 8 2011 /usr/lib64/libmpc.la*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 204782 Feb 8 2011 /usr/lib64/libmpc.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 316456 Mar 21 2011 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.1.2.2*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 277456 Mar 21 2011 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.3.4.4*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 366296 Mar 23 2012 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.4.1.0*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 945 Mar 23 2012 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.la*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 952254 Mar 23 2012 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15320 May 27
2012 /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.so.4.2.5*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 974 May 27 2012 /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.la*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 39084 May 27 2012 /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.a
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 442512 May 27 2012 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10.0.5*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 910 May 27 2012 /usr/lib64/libgmp.la*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1181218 May 27 2012 /usr/lib64/libgmp.a
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Jun 14 19:57 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.3 -
libgmp.so.3.4.4*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jun 14 20:02 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.1 -
libmpfr.so.1.2.2*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Jul 4 16:41 /usr/lib64/libmpc.so.2 -
libmpc.so.2.0.0* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Jul 4
16:41 /usr/lib64/libmpc.so - libmpc.so.2.0.0*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jul 4 16:42 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.4 -
libmpfr.so.4.1.0*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Jul 4 16:42 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so -
libmpfr.so.4.1.0* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Dec 7
14:37 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10 - libgmp.so.10.0.5*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 7 14:37 /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.so -
libgmpxx.so.4.2.5*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Dec 7 14:37 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so -
libgmp.so.10.0.5* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 7
14:37 /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.so.4 - libgmpxx.so.4.2.5*
$ md5sum /usr/lib64/lib{gmp,mpc,mpfr}*
347b12931c9b76ffa9b31b46a4cac672 /usr/lib64/libgmp.a
d4e5b91559c283fa3a012f1ecd16b8f1 /usr/lib64/libgmp.la
a454dfd560eed2455ef30843a5d84137 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so
a454dfd560eed2455ef30843a5d84137 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10
a454dfd560eed2455ef30843a5d84137 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10.0.5
5461c04b85d79fce42a9ed6699d574f9 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.3
5461c04b85d79fce42a9ed6699d574f9 /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.3.4.4
204af80681ab2a2e02441a8a079dcb54 /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.a
16e898ca7e2f94e1a421fc1cf793d93f /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.la
aca1f74508a18adc07a8c703c7334ffe /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.so
aca1f74508a18adc07a8c703c7334ffe /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.so.4
aca1f74508a18adc07a8c703c7334ffe /usr/lib64/libgmpxx.so.4.2.5
a742a55a35e5240e7d2f4c17145c55da /usr/lib64/libmpc.a
c0ee38b7d4d9bebdf17412f42563503b /usr/lib64/libmpc.la
f90954055b6767101e2afb5a6024b88d /usr/lib64/libmpc.so
f90954055b6767101e2afb5a6024b88d /usr/lib64/libmpc.so.2
f90954055b6767101e2afb5a6024b88d /usr/lib64/libmpc.so.2.0.0
cf22aca60c6962195e37895f2e7ab461 /usr/lib64/libmpfr.a
7da0b0d3d66604280a4d6f72535faaad /usr/lib64/libmpfr.la
47382b481e1838836cfed7ccfd64f4ac /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so
eabf6e0b4fc484d7a637da77fdc4be3e /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.1
eabf6e0b4fc484d7a637da77fdc4be3e /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.1.2.2
47382b481e1838836cfed7ccfd64f4ac /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.4
47382b481e1838836cfed7ccfd64f4ac /usr/lib64/libmpfr.so.4.1.0
These are the current ones, i.e. after proper installation of gmp on
the host system. But I think we've already established that that
doesn't affect the bad dependency paths.
* did you try a build with the (somewhere-)suggested fallback of
'make -j 1 ...' ?
I have now. It doesn't make any difference.
* when building from a really customised host-os, one needs to be
prepared to 'get forensic' if necessary: else it's best to build from
a (small-c) conservative base. You might, if not already, want to at
least skim-read the main docs in the gcc/mpc/mpfr/gmp source-trees,
not least to see if anything 'jumps out' at you wrt how you've got
your host-os setup.
I shall try to do that over the next few days but I wonder how much of
it I will actually understand. Perhaps I ought to start by reading up
on libtool to find how it actually makes the .la files and where
the info in them comes from.
You might also want to use the likes of strace to
see if/where/how the host-os /usr/lib64 stuff is being accessed.
--
You mean run strace on the make? Or the configure?
p.s. Re the wider picture here: when putting together the kind of
host-os system that you describe, it can be useful to use the
dependencies info from lfs/blfs (with a judicious number of grains of
salt), plus an (again, judicious) admixture of the command-lists on
the lfs/blfs pages and in the 'SlackBuild' files (e.g.
[lfs-support] 7.4 / 6.17. GCC-4.8.1 ... FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C
Hi Group, I got the error immediately below from How should I proceed? I think everything has been according to the book. Host details and version check below. Thanks, Ron === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match is located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte Below is the full output of ../gcc-4.8.1/contrib/test_summary _ The host is. Ubuntu 13.10 32 bit Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4200 @ 2.00GHz × 2 2GiB memory __ version check root@ron-Studio-1737:/home/ron# root@ron-Studio-1737:/home/ron# bash version-check.sh bash, version 4.2.45(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/bash Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.52.20130913 bison (GNU Bison) 2.7.12-4996 /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/bison.yacc bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.20 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 4.0.1 /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu9) 4.8.1 g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu9) 4.8.1 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.17-93ubuntu4) 2.17 grep (GNU grep) 2.14 gzip 1.6 Linux version 3.11.0-13-generic (buildd@aatxe) (gcc version 4.8.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu8) ) #20-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 23 17:26:33 UTC 2013 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 GNU patch 2.7.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; sed (GNU sed) 4.2.2 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.1 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha g++ compilation OK _ root:/sources/gcc-build# ../gcc-4.8.1/contrib/test_summary cat 'EOF' | LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_4_8_1_release revision 199526 Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match is located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte === g++ Summary === # of expected passes53278 # of unexpected failures1 # of expected failures290 # of unsupported tests634 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++ version 4.8.1 (GCC) === gcc tests === Running target unix === gcc Summary === # of expected passes92870 # of expected failures259 # of unsupported tests1096 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.8.1 (GCC) === libatomic tests === Running target unix === libatomic Summary === # of expected passes44 # of unsupported tests5 === libgomp tests === Running target unix === libgomp Summary === # of expected passes1313 === libitm tests === Running target unix === libitm Summary === # of expected passes26 # of expected failures3 # of unsupported tests1 === libmudflap tests === Running target unix === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes1428 === libstdc++ tests === Running target unix === libstdc++ Summary === # of expected passes9212 # of expected failures45 # of unsupported tests218 Compiler version: 4.8.1 (GCC) Platform: i686-pc-linux-gnu configure flags: --prefix=/usr --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --disable-install-libiberty --with-system-zlib EOF Mail -s Results for 4.8.1 (GCC) testsuite on i686-pc-linux-gnu gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org mv /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.log /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.log.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.log
Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 / 6.17. GCC-4.8.1 ... FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C
That was supposed to say that the error was from ../gcc-4.8.1/contrib/test_summary I do see the error in some test resultes here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/ but I don't know whether that makes it safe to continue. On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Ron Hartikka harti...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Group, I got the error immediately below from How should I proceed? I think everything has been according to the book. Host details and version check below. Thanks, Ron === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match is located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte Below is the full output of ../gcc-4.8.1/contrib/test_summary _ The host is. Ubuntu 13.10 32 bit Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4200 @ 2.00GHz × 2 2GiB memory __ version check root@ron-Studio-1737:/home/ron# root@ron-Studio-1737:/home/ron# bash version-check.sh bash, version 4.2.45(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/bash Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.52.20130913 bison (GNU Bison) 2.7.12-4996 /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/bison.yacc bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.20 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 4.0.1 /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu9) 4.8.1 g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu9) 4.8.1 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.17-93ubuntu4) 2.17 grep (GNU grep) 2.14 gzip 1.6 Linux version 3.11.0-13-generic (buildd@aatxe) (gcc version 4.8.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.8.1-10ubuntu8) ) #20-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 23 17:26:33 UTC 2013 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 GNU patch 2.7.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; sed (GNU sed) 4.2.2 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 5.1 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha g++ compilation OK _ root:/sources/gcc-build# ../gcc-4.8.1/contrib/test_summary cat 'EOF' | LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_4_8_1_release revision 199526 Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match is located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte === g++ Summary === # of expected passes53278 # of unexpected failures1 # of expected failures290 # of unsupported tests634 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++ version 4.8.1 (GCC) === gcc tests === Running target unix === gcc Summary === # of expected passes92870 # of expected failures259 # of unsupported tests1096 /sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.8.1 (GCC) === libatomic tests === Running target unix === libatomic Summary === # of expected passes44 # of unsupported tests5 === libgomp tests === Running target unix === libgomp Summary === # of expected passes1313 === libitm tests === Running target unix === libitm Summary === # of expected passes26 # of expected failures3 # of unsupported tests1 === libmudflap tests === Running target unix === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes1428 === libstdc++ tests === Running target unix === libstdc++ Summary === # of expected passes9212 # of expected failures45 # of unsupported tests218 Compiler version: 4.8.1 (GCC) Platform: i686-pc-linux-gnu configure flags: --prefix=/usr --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --disable-install-libiberty --with-system-zlib EOF Mail -s Results for 4.8.1 (GCC) testsuite on i686-pc-linux-gnu gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org mv /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum /sources/gcc-build/./gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum.sent mv /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.sum /sources/gcc-build/./i686-pc-linux-gnu/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.sum.sent mv
Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 / 6.17. GCC-4.8.1 ... FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C
On Dec 8, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Ron Hartikka wrote: Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match is located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte Hello Ron, This was reported back in August. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.devel/14295/focus=14318 Sincerely, William Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
