Re: [lfs-support] configure package texinfo 5.2 failure
Aislan de Sousa Maia wrote: I can't configure this texinfo package because it complaint Perl and Encode module. Here is my output when issue the command: ./configure --prefix=/tools and output: checking for a BSD-compatible install... /tools/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /tools/bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking whether make supports nested variables... yes checking whether UID '1001' is supported by ustar format... yes checking whether GID '1001' is supported by ustar format... yes checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar checking for perl... /tools/bin/perl checking Perl version and Encode module... no configure: error: perl = 5.7.3 with Encode required by Texinfo. The problem ocurred in chapter 5.32, LFS 7.5. Help me, I'm a novice. My system's specification: Elementary luna 0.2 x86_64 -- based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. What is the output of the host systems requirements script in Section vii? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] configure package texinfo 5.2 failure
Aislan de Sousa Maia wrote: Here is the version-check's output: bash, version 4.2.25(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/bash Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22 bison (GNU Bison) 2.5 /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/bison.yacc bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.13 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 3.1.8 Needs to be Gawk-4.0.1 or later. Typo? -- Bruce /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.15-0ubuntu10.5) 2.15 grep (GNU grep) 2.10 gzip 1.4 Linux version 3.8.0-38-generic (buildd@lamiak) (gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) ) #56~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 13 16:22:48 UTC 2014 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 patch 2.6.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha g++ compilation OK libgmp.la: not found libmpfr.la: not found libmpc.la: not found -- 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-4.9.0 changes
Pierre Labastie wrote: Le 24/04/2014 17:28, Frans de Boer a écrit : Ok, followed the advises from ticket #3552, now binutils chapter 6 reports failures: Running /sources-bss/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-plugin/lto.exp ... FAIL: PR ld/12758 FAIL: PR ld/12760 FAIL: LTO 3 symbol FAIL: PR ld/13183 FAIL: LTO 3a FAIL: LTO 11 Running /sources-bss/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-plugin/plugin.exp ... Concerning LTO, thus induced by gcc-4.9.0. Chapter 5 is completed without any errors, added --disable-werror to the binutils configure...Seems that others having no problem, so what could be wrong? Frans. I have exactly the same failures. Looking at a full build, I have: 077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: PR ld/12758 077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: PR ld/12760 077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: LTO 3 symbol 077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: PR ld/13183 077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: LTO 3a 077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: LTO 11 093-coreutils-8.22:FAIL: tests/misc/nohup.sh 093-coreutils-8.22:# FAIL: 1 093-coreutils-8.22:FAIL: tests/misc/nohup 093-coreutils-8.22:# FAIL: 1 106-perl-5.18.2:FAILED at test 104 106-perl-5.18.2:FAILED at test 84 131-systemd-212:FAIL: test-strv 131-systemd-212:FAIL: test-bus-creds 131-systemd-212:FAIL: test-journal-flush 131-systemd-212:# FAIL: 3 133-util-linux-2.24.1:last: last ipv6... FAILED (last/ipv6) 133-util-linux-2.24.1:last: last ... FAILED (last/last) 133-util-linux-2.24.1: 2 tests of 127 FAILED -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] missing systemd out
TheOldFellow wrote: Am I right in thinking that ACL, ATTR are not needed if systemd is being avoided? What else has had to be added so that systemd compiles? I'm also avoiding d-bus and sysklogd as I have better alternatives. You may find http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/eudev-alt-hint.txt helpful. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?
Pierre Labastie wrote: Le 22/04/2014 17:51, Hazel Russman a écrit : On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:42:58 +0200 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: It seems that the bin group membership of the daemon user is not needed. Could you confirm? Confirmed. It is also not necessary to set real home directories or shells for the bin and daemon users as specified in BLFS. /dev/null and /bin/false work perfectly well for these. Hazel Thanks for checking. Well I did some more checking. daemon does need to be a member of bin to pass all the 'make root-tests', but reall home directories/shells are not required. I'll update the book. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] missing coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
xinglp wrote: 2014-04-23 11:39 GMT+08:00 Armin K. kre...@email.com: On 04/23/2014 05:15 AM, xinglp wrote: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch not found. There's only svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/trunk/coreutils/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault.patch I don't care about the online book, there's no such file in the svn I fixed it just now. -- Bruce -- 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 7.5 - Chapter 6 - glibc patch
loki wrote: the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well as in the download links. I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which download link are you referring to? It does appear to be missing from the 7.5 md5sums and wget-list files also. I'll fix that later today. -- Bruce -- 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 7.5 - Chapter 6 - glibc patch
loki wrote: On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:41 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: loki wrote: the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well as in the download links. I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which download link are you referring to? It does appear to be missing from the 7.5 md5sums and wget-list files also. I'll fix that later today. -- Bruce http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/download.html And then for instance: http://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/7.5/ http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/7.5/ Yes, those are both mirrors so they should be the same. I'll get it fixed up. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] binutils 2.24 Pass-2 (Section 5.9 version 7.5)
Mcgroder, James wrote: Discovered the variable CC was set incorrectly for my second pass binutils build. I assume I can simply re-execute the build with the correct setting(s) or are there things I should physically delete 1st? And if just a re-build is OK, is this true in general? My mistake was keying the TGT part of the $LFS_TGT variable in lower case. As early as you are in Chapter 5, I'd recommend restarting that chapter. Be sure to delete any build/extracted directories and re-extract from the tarballs. -- Bruce -- 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-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. Yes, we do disable that. Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well? Why over write only one of them? Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. That seems like the correct behavior to me. but not consistent as above Do you want to submit a patch? -- Bruce -- 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-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
baho utot wrote: On 04/07/2014 08:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Do you want to submit a patch? Attached is the patch LOL. That's html. The book is in xml docbook. I'll see what I can do. -- Bruce -- 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-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
William Immendorf wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL. That's html. The book is in xml docbook.
I'll see what I can do.
I've looked at the patch briefly. I'm pretty sure that using rm to
remove an executable is a bad idea in a system that might not always
have package management. I'd also note that shadow will likely install
man pages for the executable, and the patch does not have any
instructions to handle that.
Bruce, my suggestion would be to add a new sed based off the one for
disabling the groups executable. I'd imagine that something like this
would do the trick:
sed -i 's/nologin$(EXEEXT) //' src/Makefile.in
find man -name Makefile.in -exec sed -i 's/nologin\.8 / /' {} \;
Yes, I was going to do that. Thanks for the instructions tho. Saves me
some time.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] how about auto create udev-lfs-xxx.tar.bz2 automatically
xinglp wrote:
in lfs-book, do the following job:
local udevlfs=$(grep udev-lfs-version packages.ent);
udevlfs=${udevlfs#*\}; udevlfs=${udevlfs%\*}
local udevlfsver=${udevlfs##*-}
sed -i s/VERSION=.*/VERSION=${udevlfsver}/ udev-lfs/Makefile.lfs
mv udev-lfs ${udevlfs}
tar -Scaf ${udevlfs}.tar.bz2 ${udevlfs}
http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-lfs-20140406.tar.bz2
has wrong version udev-lfs-20140406/Makefile.lfs line:6
VERSION=20140306
I know. It will be fixed tonite. The VERSION in the Makkefile.lfs
should be 20140406. For now, make that change manually and continue.
Isn't bleeding edge fun?
BTW, I don't anticipate udev-lfs changing any more with systemd version.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] udev-lfs-20140305.tar.bz2 not found.
xinglp wrote: http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-lfs-20140305.tar.bz2 Yes, it should be 20140306. I fixed that last night. The on-line version of the book is correct as well as the svn source. -- Bruce -- 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-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1
baho utot wrote: On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote: On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote: the configure should be: ./configure --disable-nologin as nologin was previously installed by shadow Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary. I am using rpm package manager. It causes a conflict when a file is already installed by another package. You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages. Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than shadow's groups binary. There isn't a groups executeable installed by shadow. Yes, we do disable that. Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed, could edit Makefile.in to exclude those. On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the Makefiles. For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and you will not know the over write has occurred. That seems like the correct behavior to me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org web site
akhiezer wrote: Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:27:12 +0100 From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer) To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org web site Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:16:24 -0400 From: baho utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org web site I am in the process of collecting information on usinf eudev in my rpm lfs builds I have found a broken link on the http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/download.html page. When clicking the link for Hints Tarball (Generated daily) I get Page not found! Perhaps you mistyped the URL? In the case of a broken link, please contact the webmaster. Had a quick nose around - don't see the tarball. - that was at main lfs site. Seems to be on osuosl mirror though: http://lfs.osuosl.org/hints/downloads/hints.tar.bz2 ; link seems to work - but didn't check currency of contents c. I found one on higgs, but it is dated December 2012. The hints have not been updated much in the last few years. Looking at the date stamps, it looks like the only hint that have changed since then is eudev-alt-hint.txt that was added yesterday. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] SVN-20140331 section 7.2.1
Robin wrote:
Refers to udev (systemd) and not eudev.
The instructions on eudev don't include creating
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
only /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules
Is it okay to use udev instructions from LFS 7.5 to create the database?
Yes, it is. It need the init-net-rules.sh, write_net_rules, and
rule_generator.functions scripts.
Or you can just add it manually:
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*, \
ATTR{address}==00:25:64:38:ec:dd, ATTR{dev_id}==0x0, \
ATTR{type}==1, KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth0
Change the MAC address to match your ethernet device.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] SVN-20140331 section 7.2.1
Robin wrote:
On 4 April 2014 15:25, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
Robin wrote:
Refers to udev (systemd) and not eudev.
The instructions on eudev don't include creating
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
only /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules
Is it okay to use udev instructions from LFS 7.5 to create the database?
Yes, it is. It need the init-net-rules.sh, write_net_rules, and
rule_generator.functions scripts.
Or you can just add it manually:
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*, \
ATTR{address}==00:25:64:38:ec:dd, ATTR{dev_id}==0x0, \
ATTR{type}==1, KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth0
Change the MAC address to match your ethernet device.
Thanks. I'd found
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/development/chapter07/network.html
Be careful. There are a lot of recent changes in that.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] SVN-20140331 section 7.2.1
Robin wrote: Refers to udev (systemd) and not eudev. The instructions on eudev don't include creating /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules only /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules That whole part is under revision. It will probably be a week before it's ready. Is it okay to use udev instructions from LFS 7.5 to create the database? Yes. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Brand new and confused. Mostly about the 7.5 book.
Al Szymanski wrote: I am just trying to figure out the overall smallest size of hard drive space needed for all of the partitions. My sums from the 7.5 book come to 80 Gig plus whatever space I want for /home . [ suggested partition sizes: root LFS 10Gig /usr/src 30-50Gig /opt 5-10Gig /usr 5Gig /tmp 5 Gig swap 2xRAM /boot100Meg =~81Gig ] Actually root of 10G will work fairly well all by itself. The swap space really depends on the amount of RAM. I suggest 2xRAM not to exceed 2G. The online version of the book says, A minimal system requires a partition of around 2.8 gigabytes (GB). in 2.2 . I've 30Gig available on the host system, and have a 30 Gig drive that I was planning on using to start my LFS system, but now think that I can not get what's needed on a small drive. So... how small a drive can I do LFS with? This is what I have mounted right now: ilesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda195M 56M 35M 62% /boot /dev/sda5 9.8G 6.3G 3.0G 69% / /dev/sda940G 30G 8.0G 79% /usr/src /dev/sda11 9.8G 5.8G 3.5G 63% /home /dev/sdb3 9.8G 3.3G 6.1G 35% /mnt/lfs /dev/sdb4 9.8G 8.7G 604M 94% /opt /dev/sdb5 9.8G 575M 8.7G 7% /tmp You don't really need separate partitions for /opt and /tmp and I have an unusual number of tarballs in /usr/src/. You have plenty of space. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Brand new and confused. Mostly about the 7.5 book.
Ken Moffat wrote: I think we are all following Al in asking the wrong question ;-) Surely, the first question ought to be What partitions will suit _my_ usage ?. I agree. In my own builds, /sources is an nfs mount (and it contains in excess of 20GB : I pruned it last week, but it has source for most of the packages in BLFS, so that I could test them for 7.5. My own builds are motly on desktops, and in general I have the following as separate filesystems : /, /boot, /home and swap. I _only_ use LFS, so I need at least two partitions which can be used for '/', and I also allocate my remaining space [ modern disks are stupidly big for desktop users ] to /scratch which does _not_ get backed up. Also, if you have the space in /home, you can keep the sources there. Re the other places mentioned : /usr/src : why do anything here ? In BLFS you are recommended to _not_ build as root (although I do in my scripts) and by default /usr/src is only writable by root. Similarly, anyone who says that the kernel tree belongs in /usr/src/linux is living in the distant past - that idea was obsolete even when I first used linux at the turn of the millenium. Building newer kernels in ~/ is good. I use /usr/src and mount it as a separate partition. Works for me. /opt : Sometimes it is useful to keep this separate, but unless you intend to put TeX or KDE in /opt I would NOT make it separate. Even if you do intend to use those space-hogs, a bigger '/' [ ideally with room for TWO versions of /opt ] will make building a newer version on the current system _much_ easier. If you do separate /opt, please remember that its programs and libraries will link to libs in '/lib' and '/usr/lib', so sharing /opt between multiple systems on the same machine is not usually possible. I don't seem to have a problem reusing programs in /opt. The libs in /lib and /usr/lib seem to be compatible. Perhaps I should stress that the recommended upgrade path for LFS is to build a new system. So, if you have /opt as a separate filesystem for the first LFS you will need a simialr amount of space for the replacement system. I reuse it. Sometimes I build a new version of a package like KDE. $ ls -ld /opt/kde* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Feb 28 12:40 /opt/kde - kde-4.12.2 drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Jun 23 2013 /opt/kde-4.10.3 drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Aug 26 2013 /opt/kde-4.11.0 drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Oct 24 06:53 /opt/kde-4.11.2 drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Feb 28 12:52 /opt/kde-4.12.2 IMHO, far better to make '/' big, with /opt and /usr part of the root filesystem. But whatever you do, if you keep building LFS or similar systems you will eventually find that your partitioning no longer meets your requirements. A rescue CD is essential [ please let me mention systemrescuecd, even though it uses zsh and is therefore not always plain-sailing when entering chroot ]. /usr : A separate /usr is a very old idea. Useful if you are on a network where /usr is an nfs mount shared by several machines. I'm sure there are other use cases, but I can't think of any at the moment. For most of us, giving /usr on its own filesystem makes no sense. We still support the capability, although I agree that it's not very common any more. I haven't done it in many years. /tmp : This is separate ? ken@ac4tv ~ $mountpoint /tmp /tmp is not a mountpoint It is for me. $ mountpoint /tmp /tmp is a mountpoint At one time we used to mount a tmpfs on /tmp, but somewhere along the way (perhaps between 6.8 and 7.0) we stopped doing that, which from my POV was a shame. But I cannot see any good reason to give /tmp its own filesystem. It can prevent a user from running the rest of the system out of space. The reason I did it was because I build in /tmp although that is surely not common. When it is separate, I can adjust the size easily. swap : yes. The traditional theory was 2 x physical memory, but I might go with more than that if physical memory is small (e.g. = 4GB). On what is now a small disk I would not go overboard with the swap. swapping is bad. If you need swap, buy more RAM. It's pretty cheap. I don't recall ever needing more than 2G. /boot : yes, it makes things easier when you upgrade your LFS syustem by building a fresh system. For me, at the moment I have 3 MB in /boot/grub, and 5 MB per kernel - and I've got a lot of those, but they are generally slimmed-down to match my hardware. Sticking a finger i nthe air, 100MB lookss adequate. I've gone to 200Mb, but I build a lot of kernels. 100M is plenty for most. For *servers*, some other directories might benefit from having their own filesystem, it all depends on what you are doing. I've seen a use-case for separating /var/log, and I myself separate /var/tmp on my server - I also have other non-standard filesystems there. That is all a question of what fits best with what you intend to do.
Re: [lfs-support] questions about chapter 5.5.1
wayne mcdanolds wrote: 1) I read it as the gcc pass 1 build just requires the in-tree sources of gmp, mpfr and mpc. Hello Rob, I agree with you about the compiling lfs (linux from scratch) from source. I have downloaded LFS v 6.3 and I am planning on compiling this. I haven't got the understanding of compiling lfs but I am studying this. LFS 7.5 is current. I suggest that. PS, I am running a Dell Dimension 4500s w a Pentium4 32 bit with 1 Gb of ram in a twelve year old machine. My main system is a 2005 Dell P4. LFS works great on it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LSF Package wget
Mcgroder, James wrote: Working through my 1st LFS build and wget seems to have missed some files listed in the wget-list file. I got the wget-list from ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/7.5/ wget-list ^ Is there a space here or is that a typo? Here is an example of one that appears in the file that was not present in $LFS/sources: mcgroder@JMCGRODER ~/lfs $ grep linux-3.13 wget-list http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/linux-3.13.3.tar.xz md5sum: linux-3.13.3.tar.xz: No such file or directory There are half a dozen or so missing... is this operator error or a problem with the mirror site(s)? I can correct easy enough but would like to understand why wget seems to have sip over some packages. The file looks OK to me. Check that you got the correct wget-list: $ md5sum wget-list 67eb8c72a4bfd2bd5d4298c43e7062fe wget-list Also check that wget actually downloaded the files. I suggest downloading the md5sums file from the same location and running 'md5sum -c md5sums'. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] questions about chapter 5.5.1
François Bissey wrote:
Hi,
I suspect it may be a case of to much knowledge is dangerous.
Having some experience
some experience is indeed a dangerous thing.
in building cross compilers and bootstrapping
systems in the past I found some elements in that chapter troubling
enough to stop and post here first:
1) There are instructions to download and unpack gmp,mpfr and mpc.
But nowhere to configure compile them.
The hints that I have from the remaining of your instructions is that
you don't want to install them.
They are built as a part of the gcc instructions in Chapter 5. They are
built as separate libraries in Chapter 6.
GCC now requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC packages. As these packages may
not be included in your host distribution, they will be built with GCC.
Unpack each package into the GCC source directory and rename the
resulting directories so the GCC build procedures will automatically use
them:
2) we are asked to gcc so that it looks for ld* in /tools/lib{,32,64} rather
than in plain /lib{,32,64}. Yet, at this stage we haven't built glibc
which would provide it, so there is nothing in /tools/lib* at this stage.
It looks to me like this will be useful in pass 2 but could lead to
breakage in pass 1.
Try it and see. /tools/lib* is the first place it looks, but if not
found, it looks at the host's files. That's why we build gcc twice.
3) configuration options for gmp and mpc? Only mpfr paths are given,
and they would need to be compiled first - statically I am guessing.
Just follow the instructions as they are written.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 5.5 GCC-4.8.2-Pass 1 Error during Make
Joshua Petty wrote: Hello, First off, thank you for all the work that you guys put into LinuxFromScratch. I am at Chapter 5.5 at the step to make, but I keep getting errors that prevent me from moving forward. Below is post of the error. If there is more that you need please ask and I will provide anything that I can. Thanks in advance. checking complex.h presence... yes checking for complex.h... yes checking for library containing creal... -lm checking whether creal, cimag and I can be used... yes checking for an ANSI C-conforming const... yes checking for size_t... yes checking for gettimeofday... yes checking for localeconv... yes checking for setlocale... yes checking for dup... yes checking for dup2... yes checking for __gmpz_init in -lgmp... yes checking for MPFR... no configure: error: libmpfr not found or uses a different ABI (including static vs shared). make[1]: *** [configure-mpc] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/gcc-build/gcc-4.8.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 You didn't follow the instructions. Read the note carefully. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /run directory: Maybe a bit off topic?
Simon Geard wrote: On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 09:59 -0400, baho utot wrote: I am working on RPM-LFS-7.5 which is LFS with the rpm package manager. I would like to adhere to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.3 so my linux systems file system layout matches/closely matches my FreeBSD systems. When was the /run directory introduced and what package(s) required moving run-time data from /var/run to /run? Just be aware that the FHS was last updated in January 2004 - a little more than a decade ago - and as such is a bit out of date with regard to how Linux distros are doing things. In particular, it's unaware of both the /sys virtual filesystem (added around 2006 as I recall), and the introduction of /run (in 2011 or so). So while it's a useful guideline, I'd suggest not getting too hung up on compliance... See http://www.linuxbase.org/betaspecs/fhs/ for the FHS-3 beta. It's not in really good shape as internally it still says 2004, but I've been working with the maintainers to update the format a bit. That document does have /sys and /run. There is really not a lot of other significant changes. Just a guess, but I think FHS-3 will be released this summer. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /run directory: Maybe a bit off topic?
baho utot wrote: Just trying to match what I have on my unix boxes. Even if it hasn't been updated doesn't mean it's not relavent. I understand adding /sys but /run makes no sense as it could have been /var/run which by the way IS in the standard. /var doesn't work if it is mounted partition. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /run directory: Maybe a bit off topic?
Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:07:49 -0400 baho utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I think there are not many folks that have that on a separate partition. That's really the only problem with using /var/run. Although I did toy with the idea of changing my system to have /var on a separate partition. It's just that it is hard to find a really good justification for geeking out and spreading your stuff over several storage devices. It does make a little sense in some situations to have /var/log on a separate partition. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] What are the SERVICES of ifconfig.eth0 but ip4-static for ppp?
Golam Md. Shibly wrote: cd /etc/sysconfig/ cat ifconfig.eth0 EOF ONBOOT=yes IFACE=eth0 #SERVICE=ipv4-static #IP=192.168.1.1 #GATEWAY=192.168.1.2 #PREFIX=24 #BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 EOF What are the SERVICES of ifconfig.eth0 but ip4-static for ppp? I tried: SERVICE=ipv4-dynamic SERVICE=ipv4-dhcp SERVICE=dhcp SERVICE=dynamic Got error with these options. Sorry. We don't have support for ppp. That's pretty rare for us. I don't recall seeing a request for that in the last 10 years. I notice that there is a howto, but it hasn't been updated since the year 2000. http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/PPP-HOWTO/index.html What does your host do? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] [spam] To post to this list, send your email
Linux Junky wrote: linuxjun...@gmail.com This is spam. Don't respond. The user registered and then unregistered. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] [spam] To post to this list, send your email
Linux Junky wrote: Hi Bruce, I am not spam. Did i accidentally unregister my self? No but a message with that subject and content looks like it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /etc/init.d/setclock start never run when we start to use eudev
xinglp wrote: When we use udev (extracted from systemd) , this is a udev rule file for it. cat /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules # /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules: Rule definitions for LFS. # Core kernel devices # This causes the system clock to be set as soon as /dev/rtc becomes available. SUBSYSTEM==rtc, ACTION==add, MODE=0644, RUN+=/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start KERNEL==rtc, ACTION==add, MODE=0644, RUN+=/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start That was in the udev-lfs tarball. I need to add this. # Comms devices KERNEL==ippp[0-9]*, GROUP=dialout KERNEL==isdn[0-9]*, GROUP=dialout KERNEL==isdnctrl[0-9]*, GROUP=dialout KERNEL==dcbri[0-9]*, GROUP=dialout I'm not sure these are needed. eudev has: 50-udev-default.rules: KERNEL==tty[AZ]*[0-9]|pppox[0-9]*|ircomm[0-9]*|noz[0-9]* |rfcomm[0-9]*, GROUP=dialout But does anyone have ippp or isdn devices any more? I don't even know what a dcbri device is. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /etc/init.d/setclock start never run when we start to use eudev
William Harrington wrote: On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: But does anyone have ippp or isdn devices any more? I don't even know what a dcbri device is. Spellcaster DataComm/BRI ISDN card devices Yeah, ippp and isdn devices still exist and people have them. OK, I'll add that too. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] test on Bc-1.06.95
Ronnie van Aarle wrote: Hello Support, I just compiled bc but after 'make' there still is no 'bc' binary executable in ./bc after make install the tests run, but not before. Did you log the install? It should have: /usr/bin/install -c 'bc' '/usr/bin/bc' That's what installs bc. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/read.html
Robin wrote: I was checking out the subject site. Clicking the read hints link produces an error: -- [an error occurred while processing this directive] Thanks. I fixed that, but it's pretty basic. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] BLFS-7.5 is released
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of BLFS Version 7.5. This version includes approximately 750 packages beyond the base Linux From Scratch Version 7.5 book. The book has over 700 significant updates from the previous version as well as numerous text and formatting changes. You can read the book online[0], or download[1] to read locally. Please direct any comments about this release to the LFS development team at blfs-...@linuxfromscratch.org. Please note that registration for the blfs-dev mailing list is required to avoid junk email. [0] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/7.5/ [1] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/7.5/ -- Bruce Dubbs LFS -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] LFS-7.5 is released
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of LFS Version 7.5. This release includes numerous changes to LFS-7.4 (including updates to Linux-3.13.3, GCC-4.8.2, Glibc-2.19, binutils-2.24) and security fixes. It also includes editorial work on the explanatory material throughout the book, improving both the clarity and accuracy of the text. In total, 32 packages (of 62) were updated from LFS-7.4 and changes to bootscripts and text have been made throughout the book. You can read the book online[0], or download[1] to read locally. Please direct any comments about this release to the LFS development team at lfs-...@linuxfromscratch.org. Please note that registration for the lfs-dev mailing list is required to avoid junk email. [0] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5/ [1] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.5/ -- Bruce Dubbs LFS -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Updates development?
Frans de Boer wrote: From last week until yesterday - Wednesday - there where several updates like linux-3.13.5, grep-2.17 and 18, psmisc-22.21, bash-4.3 and readline-6.3 and of course systemd-209. In todays online documentation update, all mentioned packages are not included. It tried to compile all (except the new systemd) and ended without any failure. Of course, some patch files needed to be removed. Am I that far ahead or is development behind? ;) We are in a package freeze until the 7.5 release. We have all of these as tickets. Note that systemd is now at version 210. By the way, since I use automated tools I no longer need a specific version adaption in my scripts, allowing for quicker re-builds. However, I still need to add or remove updated package specifics. Given time, I will resolve that too. Is it possible to publish the extraction tool for udev? That way I can check that part too. I am also interested in testing the full systemd for the systemd branch, but need more time to delve into it. So, that's a future goal. The udev-lfs tarball is done manually by me for each release. The package changes too much to automate it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Updates development?
Frans de Boer wrote: Oeps, how about continuity in case you are not able to extract udev for any given period of time? It's not particularly hard. Just use the old udev-lfs tarball, see where the problems are and update the Makefile. Generally it's just adding a couple of new files to compile and add to the library. Sometime there's nothing. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] How can I fix the following errors which happen after extracting linux 3.10.10 package (chapter 8)
Yonas Zed wrote: i follow the instraction on LFS 7.4 to build my own distro using ubuntu 12.4,32 bits ...i run the ubuntu on vmware 9 by allocationg 42GB space for storage and 2GB memory ...core-i7 2.20GHz processor...is there a different installation process for 32 and 64 bit? or different linux 3.10.10 for 32 and 64 bits?.. You seem to be hijacking the thread. Your comments don't match the subject. That said, if you use a 32-bit host, you will get a 32-bit LFS. If you use a 64-bit host, you get a 64-bit LFS. Running in vmware does not make a lot of difference outside of the kernel configuration. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] creating binutils-build again
Waitman Gobble wrote: Hi, Version 7.5-rc1 In 5.5. GCC-4.8.2 - Pass 1, the book reads mkdir -v ../binutils-build, then in 5.9. Binutils-2.24 - Pass 2, the book reads Create a separate build directory again: mkdir -v ../binutils-build. There is confusion about whether the binutils-build directory created in pass 1 should be removed before pass 2, or if it's OK to do pass 2 with the existing binutils-build from pass 1. See 5.3. General Compilation Instructions, second Important block, 3e. -- Bruce -- 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-7.5 rc1
baho utot wrote: As I am working on my build scripts for building LFS and adding the RPM package manager. I need to check my work against some one elses builds to be sure that I haven't created a catastrophe for myself. Are log files avaliable from chapter5 and chapter 6 builds? If so can some one point me to the files. Sure. http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/ -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Oshadha Gunawardena wrote: @Bruce, I did exactly as you have mentioned and it seems that only the scripts are in */etc/rc.d/rcS.d/* will get executed root:/# ls -l /etc/rc.d/rcS.d/ total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Feb 17 10:36 S00mountvirtfs - ../init.d/mountvirtfs lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S05modules - ../init.d/modules lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Feb 17 10:36 S08localnet - ../init.d/localnet lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Feb 17 10:36 S10udev - ../init.d/udev lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Feb 17 10:36 S20swap - ../init.d/swap lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S30checkfs - ../init.d/checkfs lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S40mountfs - ../init.d/mountfs lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S45cleanfs - ../init.d/cleanfs lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Feb 17 10:36 S50udev_retry - ../init.d/udev_retry lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S70console - ../init.d/console lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Feb 17 10:36 S90sysctl - ../init.d/sysctl Does /etc/inittab have: id:3:initdefault: The following is being run: si::sysinit:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc S but l3:3:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 3 apparently is not. What are the contents of /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ ? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Exotic lfs compiling question
loki wrote: Heya all. Need some help. I have an old lfs installation which is in production use, for the past 5-6 years. I guess it's version 6.3 or something since it has kernel 2.6 on it. It is time to install a new version on it. But there are the following problems: 1.) Since it is in production it can't be offline longer than 3 hrs. So the new lfs has to be compiled while the old dist is still running and then when everything is finished just copied to root. 2.) The compilation has to be done on this machine. 3.) There can't be installed any other distribution (Ubuntu, RedHat,...) or any virtual machine. 4.) Obviously I can't compile lfs 7.4 with 6.3. So here is what I need. Which lfs version can I use as a jump pad. For instance can I compile 7.0 with 6.3 and then compile 7.4 with 7.0? I can use chroot on this machine. And it isn't a problem even if I have to do a three step compile (i.e. 6.3 - 7.0 - 7.1 - 7.4) So the question is can I compile some version of lfs which can be compiled on 6.3 and can compile 7.4 and can I do both or more compilations in chroot? This may help: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/updating-lfs.html -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Oshadha Gunawardena wrote: Yes id does included id:3:initdefault: root:/# cat /etc/inittab # Begin /etc/inittab id:3:initdefault: si::sysinit:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc S l0:0:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 0 l1:S1:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 1 l2:2:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 2 l3:3:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 3 l4:4:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 4 l5:5:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 5 l6:6:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 6 ca:12345:ctrlaltdel:/sbin/shutdown -t1 -a -r now su:S016:once:/sbin/sulogin 1:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 2:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 3:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 4:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 5:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty 6:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty --noclear tty1 9600 tty2 9600 tty3 9600 tty4 9600 tty5 9600 tty6 9600 # End /etc/inittab And also the in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ has the network script root:/# ls -l /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Feb 17 10:36 S10sysklogd - ../init.d/sysklogd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S20network - ../init.d/network Please stop top posting or you will get ignored. Also, trim the posts to what is needed. Are you saying that 'ps -e|grep log' does not give syslogd and klogd? Lets also review the files in /etc/sysconfig/ and the contents of /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig* and the links in /sys/class/net/ -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Oshadha Gunawardena wrote: root:/etc# ps -e|grep log 1949 ?00:00:00 rsyslogd That's not a part of LFS. What deviations from the book have you made? You should have both syslogd and klogd. root:~# ls -l /etc/sysconfig/ total 32 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 186 Feb 17 10:56 clock -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 111 Feb 17 11:13 console -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1072 Feb 17 10:36 createfiles -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 77 Feb 18 20:06 ifconfig.eth0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 559 Feb 17 10:36 modules -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25 Feb 17 10:55 network -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2394 Feb 20 20:37 rc.site -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 679 Feb 17 10:36 udev_retry Looks OK. root:~# cat /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0 ONBOOT=yes IFACE=eth0 SERVICE=dhcpcd DHCP_START=-b -q DHCP_STOP=-k Looks OK. root:~# ls -l /sys/class/net/ total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Feb 20 20:44 eth0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Feb 20 20:43 lo Looks OK. What is the output from 'ls /etc/rc.d/rc3.d'? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS
William Harrington wrote: On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:46, loki l...@pancevo.rs wrote: On the address http://www.cross-lfs.org/ I'm getting a Domain for Sale. Oh man! I should have bought it! Well it worked 7 hours ago. It's still around. Why don't you rename it to cross.linuxfromscratch.org or similar? No domain fees required. It would only require a new entry in the lfs dns server and maybe a few updates to the web pages. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS
William Harrington wrote: On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Why don't you rename it to cross.linuxfromscratch.org or similar? No domain fees required. It would only require a new entry in the lfs dns server and maybe a few updates to the web pages. Need to contact Justin Knierim about that. We really want to keep cross-lfs.org for certain reasons. We should get it back no problem, but Jim Gifford owned it last, if I recall, and let it lapse. So we are waiting now. OK. Just let me know if you want me to do anything. -- Bruce -- 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 Website for sale
Douglas R. Reno wrote: Hello all, It appears that the domain www.linuxfromscratch.org is for sale. Just thought I would report it Domain Name:LINUXFROMSCRATCH.ORG Domain ID: D21865393-LROR Creation Date: 2000-03-08T14:13:49Z Updated Date: 2014-02-06T18:13:41Z Registry Expiry Date: 2015-03-08T14:13:49Z -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
@Pierre, I checked the /etc/rc.d/init.d/network script it seems OK. And
the run levels are 3, 4, 5 (as per the script). Also I checked in
/etc/rc.d/rc.3
/etc/rc.d/rc.4
/etc/rc.d/rc.5
And there are symlinks to the network script. It seems like the
network script it self isn't get executed. Is there a way that I can
ensure the script is being executed? Like altering it maybe
Don't top post.
Ecit /etc/sysconfig/rc.site and uncomment:
#IPROMPT=yes # Whether to display the interactive boot promp
#itime=3# The ammount of time (in seconds) to display the prompt
When you boot, it asks if you want to do an interactive prompt. Say
yes. You can then step through the boot scripts one at a time.
Edit /etc/rc.d/init.d/network and add
'echo $interface' right below the line
interface=${file##*/ifconfig.}
Then lets see what you get.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Em 18-02-2014 12:49, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
Le 18/02/2014 16:26, Oshadha Gunawardena a écrit :
Hi again all,
I have completed my LFS build. And I wanted to install dhcpcd. So as
in the BLFS I have followed every step and it seems everything went well
*make install-service-dhcpcd*
install -d -m 755 /lib/services
install -m 754 blfs/services/dhcpcd /lib/services
*cat /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0 *
ONBOOT=yes
IFACE=eth0
SERVICE=dhcpcd
DHCP_START=-b -q
DHCP_STOP=-k
Once I boot in to the system it does not starting up automatically. I
always has to run the dhcpcd to get it up. So I'm wondering what
maybe the issue.
Just guessing here.
Do you have any other file beginning with ifconfig in /etc/sysconfig?
If there is one, does it have ONBOOT=no?
Now coming to dhcpcd. Does it start when running:
---
ifup eth0
---
instead of dhcpcd?
Good point.
My previous LFS-7.4, had the interface named enp2s1:
/etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.enp2s1
My new LFS-7.5-rc1: eno1636
/etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eno1636
You need to change IFACE=eno1636
Or create a rule like:
$ cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
# This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules
# program, run by the persistent-net-generator.rules rules file.
#
# You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
# line, and change only the value of the NAME= key.
# net device e1000e
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==00:25:64:38:ec:dd, ATTR{dev_id}==0x0,
ATTR{type}==1, KERNEL==eth*, NAME=eth0
Note 1: Change the address as appropriate. You may also need to change
KERNEL to en*.
Note 2: The extension on the ifconfig file is irrelevant for the
scripts. It only needs to be relevant to you.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
@Bruce, When I checked there was already a rule, but I'm not sure if the
address and other constants are correct or not
You can check the address with `ip link show` or `ifconfig -a`.
# This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules
# program, run by the persistent-net-generator.rules rules file.
#
# You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
# line, and change only the value of the NAME= key.
# net device e1000e
SUBSYSTEM==net, ACTION==add, DRIVERS==?*,
ATTR{address}==38:60:77:26:50:e3, ATTR{dev_id}==0x0, ATTR{type}==1,
KERNEL==en*, NAME=eth0
@Fernando
root:/# ls /sys/class/net/
eth0 lo
Looks like it's working.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up
Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
@Bruce
It's strange I checked the address and it's correct. Furthermore all the
other files are seems to be in place. But then why the dhcpcd isn't
starting automatically?
I'm thinking of writing a start-up script to solve this issue.
They are not terribly long or complex scripts. Put in a few echo
statements to debug.
network calls ifup. ifup should call dhcpcd.
Also, I think I told you the wrong thing before. Now that eth0 is being
recognized, the config file needs to be ifconfig.eth0.
The network script should probably be changed to:
start)
# Start all network interfaces
for file in /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.*
do
interface=${file##*/ifconfig.}
# Skip if $file is * (because nothing was found)
if [ ${interface} = * ]; then continue; fi
. /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.$interface
/sbin/ifup ${IFACE}
done
;;
But that's for after 7.5 is released.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /tools directory
joel kammet wrote: Greetings. Working my way through my first build of LFS 7.4. I'm wondering, after building and installing all of the packages in Chapter 6, can the /tools directory be deleted? I see that find and strip are used in Section 6.65, but we have new copies of those in /bin and /usr/bin. Yes. See Section 6.66. Cleaning Up. Also, regarding backing up prior to stripping, is it ok to exclude all of dev, proc, and sys from the backup. I'm thinking something like: tar --exclude=dev --exclude=proc --exclude=sys --exclude=sources \ -cjvPf lfs-7.4.tar.bz2 /mnt/lfs Is that reasonable? Yes. You don't want to back up any virtual filesystems. Exclude /run, /proc, /sys, and /dev. Excluding sources is optional. You can always recover those. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] /tools directory
joel kammet wrote: But why do you still use /tools/bin/ for bash, file, strip on page 202? Please don't top post. What is on page 202? We work from section numbers/names, not the pdf. The page numbers can change, sometimes radically during a nightly build. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Fw: Re: /tools directory
joel kammet wrote: Section 6.65, Stripping Again uses /tools/bin/bash when re-entering the chroot environment and then /tools/bin/find and /tools/bin/strip. I don't suppose it matters, but I was just wondering if there was any particular reason that you don't use the bash, find and strip that have been installed in the new permanent directories. That's so we don't operate (strip) on a running program. After that's done, look at 6.66. Cleaning Up. At that point we are done with /tools. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit
Frans de Boer wrote: Hm, the reason I posted it in the first place was just because I noticed that Bruce his name was attached to systemd - somewhere. I can't find it any more but still my question stands. That's just a svn version where the editor has not been updated yet. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev
Alexey Orishko wrote: Hi guys, I have an old LFS 6.3 system I'm going to upgrade. I've noticed that LFS-7.4 and CLFS 2.1.0 have two different udev variants. A few questions related to that: - Will CLFS and LFS go different ways in package selection? (udev in particular) - Which one udev variant CLFS Eudev-1.3 or LFS Udev-206 (Extracted from systemd-206) would you recommend? I'm aiming at minimum changes needed while moving from legacy udev. Personally I'd recommend: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/ We are at udev-208. You may also find the following helpful: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/updating-lfs.html -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] LFS-7.5-rc1 is released
The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of LFS Version 7.5-rc1. This is the first release candidate on the road to LFS-7.5. It is a major release with toolchain updates to binutils, glibc, and gcc. In total, 32 packages were updated from LFS-7.4 and changes to text has been made throughout the book. We encourage all users to read through this release of the book and test the instructions so that we can make the final release as good as possible. You can read the book online at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/, or download from http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.5-rc1/ to read locally. -- Bruce Dubbs linuxfromscratch.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev
Alexey Orishko wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I'd recommend: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/ Any approximate date for a final release? The target is March 1st. There are a few issues with a new release for me at this point: - I need a kernel which has a long term support (3.10.x used in LFS-7.4 does) - I've switched from LFS to Cross-LFS and building on 64-bit Intel Core2 for 32-bit Intel Atom... For your host, LFS should be fine, but you can substitute 3.10.x. For the Atom, you may want to use CLFS. I don't have any experience with the Atom. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 6.40 automake-1.14.1 and flex-2.5.38
Frans de Boer wrote:
On 02/15/2014 10:48 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
On 02/15/2014 01:38 AM, Armin K. wrote:
On 02/15/2014 01:29 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
During a BSS rebuild I found that automake generates two errors which
stop the auto build.
It is introduced by flex-2.5.38, I tried the same with flex-2.5.37 with
no errors.
Maybe automake needs static flex library which Bruce disabled explicitly
with 2.5.38? There were no big changes in 2.5.37-2.5.38 development
cycle that could cause that.
Hm, I did build it with static libs. I try again with static lib's disabled.
Frans.
That did not work. With or without static (flex) libs yields the same
result. I now continue with those two tests disabled and will look into
it later. I still suspect that the label yylex is not exported by the
flex lib 'libfl.so'.
I will be enabling the static flex library and the tests for automake
will be:
mv -v /usr/lib/libfl.{so,save}
ln -sv libfl.a /usr/lib/libfl.so
make -j4 check
rm -v /usr/lib/libfl.so
mv -v /usr/lib/libfl.{save,so}
All tests pass (or are skipped) and the test time is now reduced to
about 12 SBU.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Basic Kernel Configuration
Armin K. wrote: Hello there, I have been spending my time on LFS IRC for a long time now and have noticed that most users who come for help there get stuck at configuring their kernel. Thus, I have written a rather basic guide on how to configure the kernel to get your machine to boot for the first time (disk controllers and filesystem drivers), but not other hardware specific stuff. You can see it here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~krejzi/basic-kernel.txt I wrote http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/kernel-configuration.txt a couple of years ago. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 6.40 automake-1.14.1 and flex-2.5.38
Armin K. wrote: On 02/15/2014 01:29 AM, Frans de Boer wrote: During a BSS rebuild I found that automake generates two errors which stop the auto build. It is introduced by flex-2.5.38, I tried the same with flex-2.5.37 with no errors. Maybe automake needs static flex library which Bruce disabled explicitly with 2.5.38? There were no big changes in 2.5.37-2.5.38 development cycle that could cause that. I'm doing a rebuild with all tests enabled right now and will investigate when it's done. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6 gcc problems
Change the Subject line when posting. lfs-support Digest, Vol 3067, Issue 1 is not meaningful. Prasad Kumbhar wrote: The result of the system requirement script is pasted below:- root@dragonk:/home/dragonk# bash version-check.sh bash, version 4.2.45(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/dash Change to bash. I don't know how you got to Chapter 6 with this. If you indeed built Chapter 5 with this, you need to start over. -- Bruce Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.2 bison (GNU Bison) 2.5 /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 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3 g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.17-0ubuntu5.1) 2.17 grep (GNU grep) 2.14 gzip 1.5 Linux version 3.8.0-35-generic (buildd@allspice) (gcc version 4.7.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) ) #50-Ubuntu SMP Tue Dec 3 01:25:33 UTC 2013 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 patch 2.6.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha g++ compilation OK help me out please Prasad Kumbhar -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] MC-4.8.11 requires S-Lang
Sergei Antonov wrote: Hello! I tried to build MC per this: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/mc.html And ./configure failed because of missing S-Lang. S-Lang is currently in Recommended section. I guess it has to be moved to Required. We assume that recommended dependencies are installed. With additional switches or work-arounds, the recommended dependencies can be omitted, but we don't recommend it. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Getting FAIL msg in 6.17
Prasad Kumbhar wrote: I am right now on 6.17 and performed the commands given on the 6.17 but when i gave the command make -k check then i am getting the terminal full of FAIL msg some of them are shown bellow:- FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-6.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-7.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-8.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-9.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_2.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_3.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_4.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_5.c (test for excess errors) what should i do? i have stopped my self at this... my host OS is Ubuntu 32bit. Processor:- AMD A8 We need to see the output of the host system requirements script (section vii). It would also be useful to know how much memory you have and how much free disk space is on your lfs partition. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Errors in 6.13 - Binutils 2.24
Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:39:39AM +, Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:10:42AM +, Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:53:21AM +0200, Markku Pesonen wrote: The binutils testsuite creates detailed logs in binutils/binutils.log, ld/ld.log, and gas/testsuite/gas.log in the binutils-build directory. I have found them to be very useful in figuring out unexpected test failures. Thanks! I've just blown the first attempt away, but I'll have a look at these in the second attempt. Verily, it was written: cannot find -ldl So, the ld testsuite needs /usr/lib/libdl.a for the -static tests. But now I wish I'd gone to bed hours ago : I'm still getting the same 5 failures- ld-elf.exp Forget that. I'd been up all night in the hope of getting these tests to all pass, and I guess I must have got too tired. Apologies to the binutils devs for suggesting that the summary and ld.log differed, I was wrong. I _thought_ I had rerun my script, i.e. remove the directories, untar, patch (to see which linker was used), make, make check, halt and with my own log from make check logged as LFS-7.4.-3 (third build on this machine). I certainly checked that the date/time (to the minute) of my check log and ld.log agreed, but I now guess that I must have rerun 'make check' by hand and I'm surprised that I managed to read the initial ld.log after the check log had been created, find libdl.a.hidden, rename it, and rerun make check (or perhaps just make check in ld) before the minute changed. I could have sworn that I got the not remade because of errors message. Maybe I reran make check, glanced at the screen with sleepy eyes, and read the earlier 'not remade' message. Whatever, now that I've woken the box from suspend (don't ask about yesterday :) I _did_ rerun my script and all the tests passed, with a status of 0. Spelled out in detail not because it is interesting, or counts as an adequate excuse, but because I believe that technical / support issues are like an exam - show working. Sorry for the noise. Thanks Ken, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Been there, done that. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] [blfs-support] GRUB (x-post)
Merell L. Matlock, Jr. wrote: On 01/28/14 12:13, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Merell L. Matlock, Jr. wrote: Hopefully, I'm posting to the right list...my Duck-Duck-Go/Google-fu has finally abandoned me. My (B)LFS system is complete and screaming right along, except for one little issue...GRUB. I had originally installed Mint 15 to be my host for LFS build. Mint's grub properly detected the Win 7 partition, and when I was finished with LFS, detected that as well. I haven't been back to either Mint or Win 7 since my original LFS boot, and I would really like to have all the GRUB info/configs on my BLFS system, but really have no idea (and can't seem to locate any hints) to accomplish this. Ideas or pointers would be deeply appreciated. GRUB was built in LFS Chapter 6 and the configuration covered in LFS Chapter 8. If you already installed GRUB, I hope you made a copy of grub.cfg. You can try to run grub-mkconfig to see if it finds mint and W7. Make a backup of a working grub.cfg first. -- Bruce Re-post to LFS-Support I heeded the very *first* warning in Chap 8.4. All of the grub configuration/information is in the /boot directory in the mint partition. I didn't install grub on LFS. That's fine, but the LFS kernel needs to be in mint's /boot. That type of problem is one reason why I always recommend a separate /boot partition. That way all distros use the same one. Then there is this, from grub info: * At least on BIOS systems, if you tell `grub-install' to install grub to a partition but grub has already been installed in the master boot record, then the grub installation in the partition will be ignored. I don't know how GRUB would install itself to a partition. I don't know where there is space. Anyway, I went ahead and installed grub and overwrote the MBR. Booted fine, but mkconfig did not find the mint or win7 partitions. That's because it only looked in the LFS /boot directory. I copied over the menu entries from the mint partition and all is ok. I would expect that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Errors in 6.13 - Binutils 2.24
Frans de Boer wrote: The next messages are produced every single time I encounter this chapter: Running /sources/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/elf.exp ... FAIL: static preinit array FAIL: static init array FAIL: static fini array FAIL: static init array mixed What type of partition are you building on? $ mount | grep lfs Running /sources/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-ifunc/ifunc.exp ... FAIL: Could not link a static executable - There are five failures and I can't find the cause of it. I rebuilded everything from scratch - more then once, but still encounter these messages. I tried this on i686 and x86_64 machines. Anybody an idea what might be the cause and if it is a show stopper. There should be no unexpected failures. There should only be entries like: === ld Summary === # of expected passes703 # of expected failures 61 # of untested testcases 1 If otherwise, you probably have an error in earlier builds. You have to dig into the .exp packages to figure it out. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] GRUB
Merell L. Matlock, Jr. wrote: Hopefully, I'm posting to the right list...my Duck-Duck-Go/Google-fu has finally abandoned me. My (B)LFS system is complete and screaming right along, except for one little issue...GRUB. I had originally installed Mint 15 to be my host for LFS build. Mint's grub properly detected the Win 7 partition, and when I was finished with LFS, detected that as well. I haven't been back to either Mint or Win 7 since my original LFS boot, and I would really like to have all the GRUB info/configs on my BLFS system, but really have no idea (and can't seem to locate any hints) to accomplish this. Ideas or pointers would be deeply appreciated. GRUB was built in LFS Chapter 6 and the configuration covered in LFS Chapter 8. If you already installed GRUB, I hope you made a copy of grub.cfg. You can try to run grub-mkconfig to see if it finds mint and W7. Make a backup of a working grub.cfg first. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Removed /etc During Chapter 6
Michael Gruben wrote: Was in a hurry and not paying attention after completing the gcc install in Chapter 6 (6.17 on the website). Accidentally issued rm -rf /etc while chrooted in. It's a comical situation, but how far does this set me back? Like which chapter.section do I need to restart from to keep on with LFS? Thankfully(?) I did backup the $LFS/tools directory before embarking on Chapter 6, so maybe just start from chapter 6.1 after overwriting the existing tools directory with my backup tools? It helps if you register for the list. Unregistered messages are usually just deleted. Delete all directories in /mnt/lfs/ except sources/ and tools/ (and possibly lost+found/). Restart at Chapter 6. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 5.8 Libstdc++4.8.1 compilation error also on 32-bits architecture
Enrique Larraia wrote: 2014/1/22 Pierre M.R. prousse...@sfr.fr Enrique Larraia wrote: Not sure how to check this. To be rude. I would edit gcc-build/libtool to add at line 1121: echo $PATH Yeah, this solved the issue. Now I figured out what was going on. On adding echo $PATH at the beginning of the problematic function in libtools script it was revealed that PATH was set to a different value. The key is in running 'make install' as 'sudo make install'. From man You shouldn't be using sudo. You are installing into /tools as user lfs. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 5.8 Libstdc++4.8.1 compilation error also on 32-bits architecture
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:23:26AM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:53:03PM +, Enrique Larraia wrote:
Your error was
libtool: install: chmod 644 /tools/lib/libsupc++.a
libtool: install: i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib /tools/lib/libsupc++.a
../libtool: line 1132: i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib: command not
found
I got sufficiently interested by this to try building LFS-7.4 on my
i686 7.4 system, using copy-and-paste. Fortunately (although
perhaps discouragingly for Enrique) this isn't very far into the
build.
That appears to be using a libtool script. I don't recall if it is
within the gcc-build directory, or the gcc-4.8.1 source - or even in
a subdirectory. But I guess it is in the top level of gcc-build (if
I'm wrong you'll need to search for it), and perhaps created from a
file in the gcc source by using sed on variables.
OK, so I overlooked that we are now only trying to build and
install in libstdc++. The libtool script is gcc-build/libtool.
What is the first line of this libtool script ? (I'm guessing it
will be something like #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash ?
Mine starts #! /bin/sh so the /bin/sh symlink to /bin/bash is
indeed important. Let's try rechecking, in case something in
ubuntu-land is making the symlink disappear (unlikely, but when the
obvious fails, never discount things).
I get
lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ file /bin/sh
/bin/sh: symbolic link to `bash'
lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.2.45(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
You are almost certainly using a different version of bash, please
can you compare your results for those two commands ?
At this point, I'm expecting that the /bin/sh - bash symlink is
NOT effective - but that is guesswork, and I don't know why it would
happen.
I don't know if it will help or not, but here is the log from my build
this morning:
http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/036-gcc-libstdc++-4.8.2
-- Bruce
If your /bin/sh is any version of bash-4.2, please try what I've
written below.
Can you paste the lines around line 1132 where it is invoking this
command ? I'm not sure if the ranlib (i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib) is
hard-coded in the libtool script [ i.e. something got processed by
the shell to create this libtool script ], or if it is using
variables.
In fact, that is a chunk within a function which looks like this:
# func_show_eval cmd [fail_exp]
# Unless opt_silent is true, then output CMD. Then, if opt_dryrun
# is
# not true, evaluate CMD. If the evaluation of CMD fails, and
# FAIL_EXP
# is given, then evaluate it.
func_show_eval ()
{
my_cmd=$1
my_fail_exp=${2-:}
${opt_silent-false} || {
func_quote_for_expand $my_cmd
eval func_echo $func_quote_for_expand_result
}
if ${opt_dry_run-false}; then :; else
eval $my_cmd
^ this is line 1132
my_status=$?
if test $my_status -eq 0; then :; else
eval (exit $my_status); $my_fail_exp
fi
fi
}
So we can see that either the function is being misparsed (perhaps
the local variables give a problem), or else the command is simply
not being found.
In the previous case (x86_64) I think we established that the
ranlib WAS on the PATH, but let's check in your case that things are
correct. Here are my commands and results -
lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ echo $PATH
/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ type -pa i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib
/tools/bin/i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib
lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ ldd $(type -pa
i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib)
linux-gate.so.1 (0xe000)
libz.so.1 = /lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7701000)
libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb754c000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb772d000)
And if your results really do match all of mine, I think I need a
very stiff drink ;-)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Proposed Changes to LFS Book
Ken Moffat wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:50:47PM -0500, alex lupu wrote: Dear Development LFS Book Administrators: For development, you ought to post to lfs-dev, but you'll need to subscribe before you do that. The devs (primarily Bruce and Matt) might read this here, I'm not sure. Yes. I read everything here. I respond as time permits. I agree with everything Ken says. My reaction was generally, If a user doesn't see that, then LFS is too advanced for them. -- Bruce I would like to submit for your consideration the following changes to the Section III. 6.7. Linux-3.12.6 API Headers of the Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20140102 book. 1. After the paragraph ..: This is done by way of sanitizing various C header files that are shipped in the Linux kernel source tarball., I would insert: Note: For the meaning of the action sanitizing (in this context), run command sh scripts/headers_install.sh | sed s/echo// and in the output read the section between Prepares and keywords. (output, lines 3-6). I don't find that helpful. At all. 2. After section They are placed in an intermediate local , I would insert: subdirectory (named by us, 'dest', in the command below) If the user does not understand that we are creating a directory called 'dest' then LFS is probably too hard for them. In everything, a balance is needed between explaining and teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. 3. After copied to the needed location, I would change to copied to the intended user-space standard location, '/usr/include/...' Again, that should be obvious from the command. 4. I would change the command cp -rv dest/include/* /usr/include to cp -prv dest/include/* /usr/include That would synchronize the file times in the '/usr/inlude/' tree to the times of the files created in the kernel directory on running the command 'make headers_install', and not assign them an arbitrary time when I get around to run the copy after taking out the garbage and then getting a well deserved rest before being finally able to complete the procedure :) So, you think that the time(s) when the files were initially created in dest/ are more important than the times when they were finally installed to /usr ? Why ? ĸen -- 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
William Darryl Jackson wrote: Greetings, I am trying to get glibc installed on my system, so I can continue/begin LFS. I get the same error from Glibc versions 2-17, and 18. //home/william/Downloads/glibc-2.18/nis/nis_file.c:42: undefined reference to `xdrstdio_create' / Research says it is trying to do a sunrpc (procedure call) and seems to have something to do with ports. It is a known problem on some platforms: 12.57.45 |xdrstdio_create| Gnulib module: --- Gnulib and glibc are not the same thing. What is your host distribution and what is the output of the host system requirements script? The symbol xdrstdio_create is normally in /usr/include/rpc/xdr.h after installation, but that file is in the glibc package. I note that the problem is not that the file was not found, but the variable not defined. Are you doing things *exactly* as they are in the book? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Static versus Shared libraries
Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:49:11 -0600 William Harrington kb0...@berzerkula.org wrote: After your whole build is done, you can use rm to remove them. There is actually a problem with libtool and just rm-ing a static library. I don't know the specifics of it, but subsequent build attempts of other packages needing the affected libraries may fail. Then you also remove the *.la files. They generally get in the way. The exception is ImageMagick modules. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Static versus Shared libraries
Frans de Boer wrote: Dear reader, While building things again, I now start to wonder why LFS let almost every package installs a static library? Where are the static libraries used? After all, the down side of static libraries is that once linked into a module/program, any upgrade is not incorporated. Potentially leaving modules/programs vulnerable to manipulation. It is listed that only a very few use some static libraries and others are not mentioned. I know, disk space is not an issue nowadays, but still it needs to be maintained and dependencies are not listed anyhow. Can someone shed some light on this issue? See http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable/introduction/libraries.html -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Kernel file not found
Igor Živković wrote:
On 12/22/2013 09:02 AM, Cliff McDiarmid wrote:
set root=(hd0,7)
menuentry LFS6, Linux 3.12.1-lfs-7.2 {
linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.1 root=/dev/sda7 ro
}
menuentry LFS7, Linux 3.12.5-lfs-7.4 {
linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.5 root=/dev/sda6 ro
}
How is this? Spelling is all correct in /boot. The host 'LFS6' boots fine.
You're missing set root=(hd0,6) for in the LFS7 menu entry.
Yes thanks that boots the new system okay but leaves lfs6unbootable . I.e
no file found. There must be some kind of syntax error here somewher.
Instead of global set root statement, define it in each menu entry like
this:
menuentry LFS6, Linux 3.12.1-lfs-7.2 {
set root=(hd0,7)
linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.1 root=/dev/sda7 ro
}
menuentry LFS7, Linux 3.12.5-lfs-7.4 {
set root=(hd0,6)
linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.5 root=/dev/sda6 ro
}
This type of problem is generally solved by having /boot on a separate
partition. It also gives the advantage of being able to access boot.cfg
from any booted system without a separate mount.
-- Bruce
--
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 and network aliases on ethernet ports
Geoff Swan wrote: Is it possible to add alias networks to an ethernet device in LFS-7.4? I was used to the old method of having ifconfig-eth0:1, etc with the alias network defined in this file, as for the ifconfig-eth0 file. However the alias files do not appear to be recognised on boot. I don't think the /lib/services/ipv4-static script recognises the config files. What are the contents of your ifconfig-eth0:1 file? -- Bruce -- 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 and network aliases on ethernet ports
Geoff Swan wrote: On 23/12/2013 11:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Geoff Swan wrote: Is it possible to add alias networks to an ethernet device in LFS-7.4? I was used to the old method of having ifconfig-eth0:1, etc with the alias network defined in this file, as for the ifconfig-eth0 file. However the alias files do not appear to be recognised on boot. I don't think the /lib/services/ipv4-static script recognises the config files. What are the contents of your ifconfig.eth0:1 file? The eth0:1 file: ONBOOT=yes IFACE=eth0:1 SERVICE=ipv4-static IP=205.158.179.178 GATEWAY=205.158.179.161 PREFIX=27 BROADCAST=205.158.179.191 For testing, make ONBOOT=no. The GATEWAY needs to be commented out since it is not in the eth0:1 network. You can then test using '/sbin/ifup eth0:1' or 'ifdown eth0:1' BTW, You never said what messages you got, if any. You should get some kind of message for either success or failure. After getting it to work, change ONBOOT back to yes. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Nettle Dependency
Jason Yailm wrote: Dear Mr. Dubbs, In following the instructions for the installation of nettle, I realized that in order to create the libhogweed libraries, I needed gmp. As you can see here after the Now, as the root user: statement in the Installation of Nettle section, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/nettle.html the installation implies the creation of a /usr/lib/libhogweed.so.2.5 file. I do not have gmp, and this family of libraries was not created for me. After installing gmp, the previous directions did create the hogweed family. These messages should go to blfs-support, not me personally. gmp is installed in LFS. -- Ntuvr -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB
William Harrington wrote:
On Dec 18, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Dan McGhee wrote:
/usr/share/grub/grub-mkconfig_lib: line 53: 12058 Segmentation
fault (core dumped) ${grub_probe} -t fs $path /dev/null
21
Path `/boot/grub' is not readable by GRUB on boot. Installation is
impossible. Aborting.
Did you use optimizations while building grub?
I've always thought that not having a separate /boot partition that is
separate from any raid device makes things unnecessarily complicated.
The typical size of 100-200 Mb is trivial on today's drives and the fact
that it is read mostly means that backups should be easy.
-- Bruce
--
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 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB
Dan McGhee wrote: On 12/18/2013 02:08 PM, loki wrote: On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 09:24 -0600, Dan McGhee wrote: Are you trying to do this on a UEFI system? Dan Nope. I'm not even sure that this old rig is EFI capable :) And secondly I'm too lazy to learn it since for the servers that I use 4 primary partitions is the most I'm going to use and the other gizmos and gadgets that EFI has are also overkill. :) And I'm somewhat old school, I don't believe that the computer itself should have a full fledged operating system embedded on it. I'm from the Kickstart Disk generation. Basic Input Output System, just get it to the state where the operating system can take the computer over and then vanish. But at the end I'm very reluctant to use something that is embedded on the machine and has the touch of MICROSOFT on it. :p You and I have similar attitudes, esp with regard to the M-word. :) From the research I did I concluded that the UEFI thing is here to stay--doesn't necessarily mean secure boot either. In fact, that's the first thing I turned off with my new machine. What I like is not being limited to four primary partitions. You can do that in a BIOS based system. You can use GPT without UEFI. I think there may be an issue if you have a boot partition that ends above 2T, but I always recommend a small partition at the beginning for /boot. The trick for grub users is to get it to look across the partitions without having to have a signed grub.efi file. And as soon as I get my LFS system to the point I want to reach, I'm going to do another build and see if I can make that happen. Doesn't UEFI systems have a 'Legacy' mode where that stuff is not needed? -- Bruce What else I learned was that UEFI is a manufacturer thing, but secure boot is the innovation (?) of the M-word. Go figure. Of course, if your rig is old, this is not relevant. But as my niece tells me, Old is only a number. :) :) Dan -- 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 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB
Dan McGhee wrote: On 12/18/2013 04:09 PM, akhiezer wrote: Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:00:11 -0600 From: Dan McGhee beesn...@grm.net To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB [...] But, AFIK, the user must *make* the partition behave with the GUID's. [...] Not quite sure what you're meaning there, Dan - apols if/that am being dense: elab if poss? (No probs of course if not.) No prob anywhere. [...] But, again AFIK, if the firmware is MBR based, you're still limited to four primaries. IIUYC: no; e.g. got an old (a testing-machine) p4 on a supermicro p4spa+ (or sim) mainboard, running modern blfs/slack1337, with disks partitioned with GPT and each disk has ~16 partitions. No non-/pre-GPT stuff in sight, no UEFI stuff in sight, and all goes just fine. This is what I meant. The user needs a gpt capable partitioning tool to *make it so* on an older machine. And, again IIUYC re 'primaries': no such concept in GPT, at least not in pre-GPT sense; and in pre-GPT sense, yes, the spec only allows for 4 primaries anyhow. This is another source of misunderstanding. May be too strong a word. It's all vocabulary. MSDOS MBR's don't have the bit length to physically support more than what is know as a primary, as opposed to extended partition. Not quite. The MBR handles 32-bit words. That gives addressing of up to 4G of 512-byte partitions. That's how you get the 2T limit. The limit could be higher if the block size is 4K, but that creates a lot more problems for the legacy BIOS, so it's better to just use GPT that has 128-bit lengths for sector addressing. That's enough for a zetabye or so even with 512-byte sectors. Try to run fsck on that! :) Extended partitions have the same limitations as MBR primary partitions, but there are just in a linked list and not an array. I don't have a pdf reader set up on my new LFS yet so I can't refer to an article I'm thinking of. But if I remember, the old MBR is 16 bit. The UEFI bios firmware is 128 bit. There, of course, is a limit to the number of partitions, but it's large. :) I think it is 128 partitions by default, but it can be made to handle more. Another difference is that classical systems start the first partition at the 2nd 'physical' track (often faked in drives) of 63 sectors. That leaves about 31K for the GRUB2 code. For GPT, we make a raw boot partition for grub, usually 1Mb, that give it lots of space for expansion, but is negligible compared to the whole disk drive. From our perspective, the only thing that is needed is to load one 512-byte sector into memory and execute it. The bootstrapping continues from there and only needs very basic BIOS calls to load other sectors into memory. Of course after booting, the kernel does not need the BIOS/UEFI at all. -- Bruce I find this subject fascinating, but until I get my new system where I want it, I'm hampered by jumping back and forth between Ubuntu and LFS. So I'm just still building until then. Thanks for responding akh, you've provided me with some more precision in my ability to talk about this. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.9 - Glibc - interpreting errors
Frans de Boer wrote: Dear all, There was another thread in this form which did not yield the desired result. So, maybe I can revive it. Below is the output listing from the test in 6.9.1: make[1]: Target 'check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory '/sources/glibc-2.18' Makefile:9: recipe for target 'check' failed make: *** [check] Error 2 This will always occur unless you have a completely clean test -- which I've never seen. Display errors make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/csu/test-multiarch.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [csu/tests] Error 2 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error 1 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[1]: *** [posix/tests] Error 2 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/nptl/tst-attr3.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/nptl/tst-pthread-getattr.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/nptl/tst-execstack.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [nptl/tests] Error 2 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/conform/run-conformtest.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-chk3.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-lfschk3.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-chk6.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-lfschk6.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [debug/tests] Error 2 make[1]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/c++-types-check.out] Error 1 make: *** [check] Error 2 Some errors are explained in the documentation, while others are not. The question is now: is it safe to install glibc or not? Some of these are are new to me. Did you try to run the tests with TIMEOUTFACTOR=16? -- Bruce -- 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 7.4 Chap 6.17 GCC-4.8.1 -- unexpected failures
Bob Elgie wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Unix User mailinglistacco...@yahoo.comwrote: Thank you, Seba, for spotting that. During Chapter 5 I did link sh to bash in the host. In Chapter 6, after the chroot, that link is invisible, isn't it? The only accessible shell is the bash in the toolchain, I believe. That's correct. Only bash is in the chroot environment. I don't know what caused the problem, but you should not see that many errors. How much disk space do you have on your LFS partition? What kind of hardware are you building on? Is this in a virtual environment? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Ethernet Card Not Found
Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/25/2013 8:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/25/2013 11:50 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Dan McGhee wrote: r8169 71677 0 mii13527 1 r8169 Looking at the help in the kernel for CONFIG_R8169: Selects: FW_LOADER [=y] CRC32 [=y] MII [=y] How does one access this help? Use a / and type in a term. Can you explain this more fully? While in menuconfig, type /. You can figure it out from there. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 / 6.17. GCC-4.8.1 ... FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C
William Harrington wrote: On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Ron Hartikka wrote: I should have said I came across that thread and other threads elsewhere about this error. As far as looking through the gcc-testresults mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?wm=wrdform=extendedm=alls=Dul=%2Fml%2Fgcc-testresults%2F%25q=AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest Maybe you'll find your platform there. It looks like the the issue is specific to the x86 architecture. I would ignore it. -- Bruce -- 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 7.4 / 6.9 - Glibc - how to tell if error messages are benign or critical?
frozen tuesday wrote: root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/ test-float.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ldouble.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ildoubl.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ifloat.out] Error 1 I would want to dig into the tests to see what is failing. They all look related and my first reaction is that there are hardware issues, but I haven't seen these particular errors before. Is there any way for a relatively novice user like myself to better determine what these errors are before continuing, as you suggested? I suppose the only other route for me to take is to forge ahead and hope for the best. Look at the contents of /sources/glibc-build/math/test-*.out. Sometimes tracing the sources through the test suite can be quite challenging. On the other hand, sometimes errors may be indicated by an off-by-one issue in the least significant digit. Unless you are doing really heavy math, that probably is something you can live with. As mentioned before, it's a relatively older system (Athlon XP 3200+) which doesn't have SSE2 or other newer instruction extensions. Could that be the cause of the errors? That's possible, but I'd think it would have been handled in the code. If it should be and isn't, then it does need to be brought up upstream. -- Bruce -- 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 7.4 / 6.9 - Glibc - how to tell if error messages are benign or critical?
frozen tuesday wrote: Hello all -- I just ran make on Glibc in section 6.9. Using Linux Mint 15 on an Athlon XP 3200+ as my host system to build. When I ran the non-optional checks on Glibc using the commands: make -k check 21 | tee glibc-check-log grep Error glibc-check-log Grep returned the following error messages in the log. Most of them I recognize from the documentation but some I do not. I do not know if I can continue or need to redo some step(s). root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-float.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ldouble.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ildoubl.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ifloat.out] Error 1 I would want to dig into the tests to see what is failing. They all look related and my first reaction is that there are hardware issues, but I haven't seen these particular errors before. make[1]: *** [math/tests] Error 2 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error 1 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[1]: *** [posix/tests] Error 2 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/conform/run-conformtest.out] Error 1 (ignored) make: *** [check] Error 2 root:/sources/glibc-build# What worries me the most is the last line of the make output (right before I ran the grep line) which states that check was not remade because of errors. That is quite normal, make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.18' make: *** [check] Error 2 Is this a serious problem or something I can safely ignore? There is nothing in LFS that I know of that uses floating point, but there are definitely places in BLFS that do. I would like to know the nature of the failures before continuing. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Configuring 3.10.10 for quad-core processor
Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:47PM -0600, William Harrington wrote: On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: AMD-10-5745M Have you used the powernow-k8 driver and have SMP enabled? http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/X86_POWERNOW_K8.html Sincerely, WIlliam Harrington Powernow is for cpufreq (a good thing to use, IMHO, but not mentioned in LFS) and not used anymore for K10 and newer CPUs (the support is now in acpi-cpufreq). From memory, the initial K10 was the athlon64xII. My git-foo isn't good enough to identify which release that happened in, but the indications are that it was well before 3.10. SMP is the key. If Dan is building only for that machine (and doesn't intend to use the system to boot any replacement machine when the time comes) then optimizing for the specific processor family, i.e. AMD x86_64 (Opteron/Athlon/Hammer/K8 : this is CONFIG_MK8 but works on K10 ;-) might gain a little, as might Multi-Core Scheduler support. I hate to mention the obvious, but is CONFIG_X86_64_SMP set in the kernel? Other possibilities: CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS=y CONFIG_GENERIC_SMP_IDLE_THREAD=y CONFIG_SMP=y CONFIG_HAVE_TEXT_POKE_SMP=y -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Shadow tar file
Frans de Boer wrote: I noticed that the debian site can't be reached anymore and therefore the newest shadow tar can't be reached - if any. Does anybody knows where the latest shadow tar's can be found - beside the LFS site. http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/shadow/ -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 5.15. Ncurses-5.9 fails to make
Ron Hartikka wrote: Hi Group, Things seemed to be going well and according to the book until ncurses. My host is Ubuntu 13.10 the rest of my info is below. Any ideas what is wrong? Not really. include/ncurses_def.h is definitely wrong. That's a generated file. The host requirements look OK, but I do see that configure is picking up mawk anyway. My log shows: AWK=gawk sh ./MKncurses_def.sh ./ncurses_defs ncurses_def.h You may want to mv mawk to mawk.sav and try again. -- Bruce -- 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-7.4
Baho Utot wrote: Is it possible to build LFS-7.4 on x86_64 without the /lib64 symlink? I have tried to do so but libstd++ in the chapter 5 tool chain dies. I would like to build for x86_64 and have the same filesystem layout that i686 has ie without the lib64 directories I really don't know but I can make some guesses. uname --machine gives x86_64. I wouldn't be suprised if some packages that assume a multilib system use that value to insist on /lib64 or /usr/lib64. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Host System Requirements LFS 7.4 with Mageia 3
a...@xfsmail.com wrote: Hi all, I'm still new for LFS, I'm going too try it. I'm with Mageia 3 and this is on the host bash, version 4.2.37(2)-release /bin/sh - /usr/bin/bash Binutils: (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.23.51.0.8.20121218 bison (GNU Bison) 2.7 /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/yacc.bison bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.20 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.5.10 GNU Awk 4.0.2 /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk gcc (GCC) 4.7.2 g++ (GCC) 4.7.2 (GNU libc) 2.17 grep (GNU grep) 2.14 gzip 1.5 Linux version 3.8.13-desktop586-1.mga3 (i...@jonund.mageia.org) (gcc version 4.7.2 (GCC) ) #1 SMP Tue May 14 19:06:27 UTC 2013 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 version-check.sh: line 29: make: command not found GNU patch 2.7.1 Perl version='5.16.3'; sed (GNU sed) 4.2.2 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.2alpha g++ compilation OK Is my Mageia 3 ready for LFS 7.4 ? Not without make. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] TLDP LFS Guide
lfs-support.neophyte_...@ordinaryamerican.net wrote: I've started trying to use LFS 7.4. As usual with these things, I took a tangent and went looking for Internet references outside of www.LinuxFromScratch.org. Does anyone within the LFS project maintain The Linux Documentation Project LFS Guide, http://www.tldp.org/guides.html#lfs or is that done by someone attached to TLDP? TLDP's information is out-of-date. It refers to version 6.1.1. That reference *is* the book as it was written for LFS 6.1.1. I once tried to get them to list BLFS (I think around 2005), but they got too fussy about the license. I didn't see the value. A lot of their stuff is quite out of date. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Ethernet Card Not Found
Gordon Findlay wrote: That's kind of what confuses me about this whole issue... the degree to which discussions here and elsewhere get so heated and angry. It's obviously supremely important to some people - but I don't understand why, when to me it seems such a small thing. I teach Linux, and this sort of change obsoletes a huge amount of material that students find in print or on the web. It makes Linux appear capricious and flaky in their eyes. Just to continue the conversation, I would ask those students if it's OK that Windows changes all sorts of things with each new version? Is it OK that older systems just stop working due to obsolescence. I too teach Linux, but I try to give a balanced presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of new developments. Most new developments are beneficial to some people. It's the attempt to force things that I object to. The prime example is merging udev with systemd. The prime example of disregarding that foolishness is LFS. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Interesting Names
Dan McGhee wrote: From reading that policy statement in the man page, I think my NIC should also be named enpXsY but it's eth0. That's because you ran the init-net-rules.sh script as a part of the udev installation. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 6.42. Diffutils-3.3, LFS 7.4, make install fails to install locale files
Rob Taylor wrote: 6.42. Diffutils-3.3, LFS 7.4, make install fails to install locale files I noticed these messages in my install.err log for this package... /bin/sh: line 5: @mkdir_p@: command not found installing ca.gmo as /tools/share/locale/ca/LC_MESSAGES/diffutils.mo I see you recorded similar messages: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/7.4/core2duo/logs/047-diffutils I found this patch which corrected the issue: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-diffutils/2013-09/msg3.html Thanks for pointing that out. I think you have a problem though if the above is from Chapter 6. It should not be installing in /tools. I've opened up a ticket so we don't forget this. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Ethernet Card Not Found
akhiezer wrote: From: Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:05:53 +1300 Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Ethernet Card Not Found . . But really, what's wrong with it? All the melodrama, talking about abominations and complaining about Lennart breaking things - but what's actually wrong with it, that makes that 1% solution a problem for you? I think at least some patently obvious answers to that are in this and similar threads - e.g. the pointless hassles caused to all sorts of folks, for no gain, from new 'wonder' 'solutions' that will be thrown out - and in this case are already being partially thrown out right now - in favour of the next magic bullet; and so on and on. Because it's not something I'd even notice - I've no idea what the network device on this machine is called, because I've never needed to know it, other than when I first set it up an age ago. What do you do What method do you use for e.g. firewalling rules, if any, on that machine? Do you use device names that are gotten/updated dynamically so that you never 'need' to know them, and reliably so that you're not left with an open 'firewall': or d'you have a similar method for using IP-addresses only, that can adapt dynamically to different networks? Or d'you not use any firewalling on that particular machine; or what? It's an intriguing concept - *never* needing to know the name of network device(s) on one's Linux computer, and for someone like yourself who would appear to be an (=)advanced user. differently, that the new naming convention can annoy you so much? From here, it's not really annoyance: it's more contempt for the, at base, intellectual inanity of much of the attempts at solving 'dynamic-environment' issues in Linux (e.g. udev/*Kits/ccc). And even moreso for the behaviour of various 'characters' who push this stuff as if it is a ready solution, when instead it's at best half-baked. Too many distros - who are not intentionally positioning themselves as overtly bleeding-edge - adopt and push it too in the same manner. And so the inevitable add-ons and bodges and fixes and changes of approach from upstream, and eventual abandoning of it in favour of the new flavour-of-the-period, are essentially all being carried out in-situ in the 'working' OS on folks' computers: those users are essentially being led - and pushed - around by the nose. Also do spare us the disingenuous what's the problem nonsense. There is a well-known context and wider picture to all this stuff. One of the central problems is that there are characters prominent in the Linux landscape who are behaving in ways that are similar to those who would _enslave_ others if they can get away with it: you let yourself be frog-boiled if you like; not everyone will sleepwalk into it, though. There are characters prominent in Linux who - presumably/hopefully not quite realising the historical and geographical resonances - advocate the burning, not quite of books, but of printed matter. The linux kernel is routinely released with the statement, All users of the x.yy kernel series must upgrade.: even allowing for differences in first-language and possibly context etc, what sort of garbage is that - must upgrade ? We're all for genuine improvements, and have adopted here a lot of new things in Linux: but have also, in an informed procedure, rejected one 'magic bullet' after another as they came and went, simply because ... they're not very good. And a lot of the stuff that's causing the controversies over the past few years, are just _not very good_: _that_ is the main problem. The wording in this message comes across a little too strong. Yes, we sometimes get a little emotional about the foolishness that we see, but lets try to be a little more civil when discussing technical matters. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
