Re: glibc version in linux host
Le jeudi 11 août à 18:18, Franz L. Kuhlmann a écrit : Hi - when dabbling with LFS 6.6 last year using Ubuntu 9.04, I had no problem to build my own linux up to the point of getting it to run as an alternate to Ubuntu or Windows XP. After having installed brand new PC, Display, and 3 in 1 InkJet, I recently restarted with LFS 6.8 going by the book. I had no problem to straighten out the Host System Requirements via the Synaptic Package Management Tool, EXCEPT for *gcc/glibc*. Allegedly, the new Ubuntu version 11.04 has installed glibc-2.13, but bash version-check.sh tells me /lib/libc.so.6 no such file or directory (when proceeding to chap5 nevertheless, making gcc and/or glibc failed not surprising me really) The LFS 6.3 LiveCD does have libc.so.6, but when copied into the Host System /lib, the version check yields -again not surprisingly- GNU C Library 2.5.1 Also: Looking into an OpenSUSE LiveCD downloaded a year ago, there is no /lib/libc.so.6 !?! Is there anybody around to explain this to me / point me to a Howto or other reading? Maybe it's an error of my own but libc.so.6 is a link to /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libc-2.13.so This on my host (debian/wheezy). On my LFS 6.8 (not complete at the moment), /lib/libc.so.6 is a link to /lib/libc-2-14.so You can try find / -name 'libc.so.6' Hope this can help :-) -- Ph. Delavalade -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 10:29 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: However, the one being _built_ is the one needing the hooks, not the one running. As long as one has full source for everything being built, and isn't relying upon the include files for the one being run, it shouldn't matter. I'm guessing it has to do with building glibc against headers for a new kernel, but not actually running that kernel. And more specifically, what happens when software tries to use features which glibc claims to support, but the running kernel doesn't. Note how in the glibc build, we pass --enable-kernel=2.6.22.5, which configures it with the assumption that it will never need to run on an older kernel than 2.6.22.5 (which is of course the minimum version listed in Host System Requirements). Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: GLIBC compilation termination due to sys/capability.h
Thanks Andrew, it works and build is completed. On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Andrew Benton b3n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 03:35:51 +0530 sandip sitapara s13884...@gmail.com wrote: But I got following error while compiling glibc while compilint In file included from nscd.c:46:0: selinux.h:26:29: fatal error: sys/capability.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. I have tried to find the sys/capability.h but there is no folder like sys. There is a capability.h but in linux directory. So anybody please tell me what is the problem here? You've not given us much to go on but it looks like glibc is trying to compile support for selinux. We used to configure glibc --without-selinux http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.4/chapter05/glibc.html But that was dropped in LFS-6.5. Does it work does it work if you add --without-selinux to glibc's configure options? Delete the glibc-build directory and make a new one to make sure you start fresh. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
Simon Geard wrote: On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 10:29 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: However, the one being _built_ is the one needing the hooks, not the one running. As long as one has full source for everything being built, and isn't relying upon the include files for the one being run, it shouldn't matter. I'm guessing it has to do with building glibc against headers for a new kernel, but not actually running that kernel. And more specifically, what happens when software tries to use features which glibc claims to support, but the running kernel doesn't. Note how in the glibc build, we pass --enable-kernel=2.6.22.5, which configures it with the assumption that it will never need to run on an older kernel than 2.6.22.5 (which is of course the minimum version listed in Host System Requirements). Does glibc use system call API or the kernel's code? The whole idea of stability of an OS I would think would be when BIOS interrupts are triggered and kernel problems happen that user space never sees the problem. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
Bill Cunningham wrote: Does glibc use system call API or the kernel's code? The whole idea of stability of an OS I would think would be when BIOS interrupts are triggered and kernel problems happen that user space never sees the problem. Glibc provides an interface and services that, among other things, do the work of setting up calls to the kernel. Very few programs access the kernel without going through glibc, although it is possible. The BIOS is a set of code instructions in ROM that runs in the CPU's real mode. The kernel runs in protected mode and does not call any BIOS calls at all other than possibly some initialization. It would just be too inefficient. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 13:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: Since the C programming language is built upon a virtual machine concept, and the sources for the tools are all written in C, AFAIK, then what is the problem. Any machine which supports the necessary constructs should be able to emit the code necessary. One should be able to build for the PC using a MAC, ISTM. True, and I believe you can even build (for example) AIX powerpc binaries from a Linux x86 host if you really want to take the effort. But even with the less extreme cross-compiling used by CLFS, it's still quite a bit more work than a 'simple' native LFS build. What is the issue? Does the GCC have special hooks into the kernel or sth like that? GCC doesn't - but glibc does. Not my area of expertise, but I assume a 2.4 kernel simply doesn't provide the necessary syscall interfaces to build a modern glibc. Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:03:16 +1200 Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote: GCC doesn't - but glibc does. Not my area of expertise, but I assume a 2.4 kernel simply doesn't provide the necessary syscall interfaces to build a modern glibc. I seem to recall it was pthreads that were new in the 2.6 kernel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
Simon Geard wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 13:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
What is the issue? Does the GCC have special hooks into the
kernel or sth like that?
GCC doesn't - but glibc does. Not my area of expertise, but I assume a
2.4 kernel simply doesn't provide the necessary syscall interfaces to
build a modern glibc.
However, the one being _built_ is the one needing the hooks, not
the one running. As long as one has full source for everything
being built, and isn't relying upon the include files for the
one being run, it shouldn't matter.
So, I still don't get it.
Mac
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: GLIBC compilation termination due to sys/capability.h
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 03:35:51 +0530 sandip sitapara s13884...@gmail.com wrote: But I got following error while compiling glibc while compilint In file included from nscd.c:46:0: selinux.h:26:29: fatal error: sys/capability.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. I have tried to find the sys/capability.h but there is no folder like sys. There is a capability.h but in linux directory. So anybody please tell me what is the problem here? You've not given us much to go on but it looks like glibc is trying to compile support for selinux. We used to configure glibc --without-selinux http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.4/chapter05/glibc.html But that was dropped in LFS-6.5. Does it work does it work if you add --without-selinux to glibc's configure options? Delete the glibc-build directory and make a new one to make sure you start fresh. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 22:57 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: Ok thanks all. I see. I will check it out. Once I build this 5.1 would I be able to go to 6.8 immediately? No, don't do that - LFS 5.1 is itself an ancient version, from 2005 or so. Bruce probably only mentioned it because it was the last version that supported a 2.4 kernel. And because it used a 2.4 kernel, it would be useless for building any recent version for the same reason as your RH9. Just find a live disk of some recent distro, and use that as a host - Ubuntu is good, someone else suggested Gentoo. You don't actually need to install it - just boot off a CD or USB stick, and build the packages from there. Forget about Redhat 9 - it's just too old. Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote: Just find a live disk of some recent distro, and use that as a host - Ubuntu is good, someone else suggested Gentoo. You don't actually need to install it - just boot off a CD or USB stick, and build the packages from there. Forget about Redhat 9 - it's just too old. Or just simply burn an image of Knoppix and you will be fine. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- Are you a Gmail user? Please read this important notice: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/jstrap/gmail?31450. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
William Immendorf wrote: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote: Just find a live disk of some recent distro, and use that as a host - Ubuntu is good, someone else suggested Gentoo. You don't actually need to install it - just boot off a CD or USB stick, and build the packages from there. Forget about Redhat 9 - it's just too old. Or just simply burn an image of Knoppix and you will be fine. I have a livecd of lfs. I think that will do. now if I could just figure out how to get the system running with it. I will look closely at the docs. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
William Immendorf wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net
wrote:
  Ok. It's there. I have solved this problem. And another has arisen. I am
running an old RH 9 32 bit OS on a AMD athelon 64 bit address bus processor.
(FYI: It's spelled Athlon, not Athelon.)
Your CDO is showing :-)
CDO is like OCD, but the letters are in the right order.
The OS that you are using is not adquadate for building LFS 6.8. The
book recommends a host system that is like or newer than LFS 6.3,
which is dated around late 2007. Redhat 9 was released around 2003 or
so, and that tells me right there that your host system is way too old
to build on.
Since the C programming language is built upon a virtual machine
concept, and the sources for the tools are all written in C, AFAIK,
then what is the problem. Any machine which supports the necessary
constructs should be able to emit the code necessary. One should be
able to build for the PC using a MAC, ISTM.
What is the issue? Does the GCC have special hooks into the
kernel or sth like that?
Mac
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
Mike McCarty wrote: CDO is like OCD, but the letters are in the right order. Isn't OCD a required trait to build LFS? :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: I have a livecd of lfs. I think that will do. now if I could just figure out how to get the system running with it. I will look closely at the docs. As long as that LiveCD is of LFS 6.3, you are fine. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- Are you a Gmail user? Please read this important notice: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/jstrap/gmail?31450. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
Bruce Dubbs wrote: Mike McCarty wrote: CDO is like OCD, but the letters are in the right order. Isn't OCD a required trait to build LFS? :) -- Bruce Not required... but it sure helps!!! -- Eric Plummer anadox...@gmail.com -- Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. No top posting, please. -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
William Immendorf wrote: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: I have a livecd of lfs. I think that will do. now if I could just figure out how to get the system running with it. I will look closely at the docs. As long as that LiveCD is of LFS 6.3, you are fine. Now it's not glibc I am concerned about my new builds of c++ and gfortran compilers are failing. C is the only thing that works. and the g++-3.2.2 that came with RH9. I'm using it to compile gcc-4.5.3 and 4.6.1 and running into the same problem. Can't find libstd++.so.6 or a shared like that. The thing is it's right there and the dynamic linker sees it. Maybe ld isn't seeing it. Something's not right. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:02:58 -0400
Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote:
Now it's not glibc I am concerned about my new builds of c++ and
gfortran compilers are failing. C is the only thing that works. and
the g++-3.2.2 that came with RH9. I'm using it to compile gcc-4.5.3
and 4.6.1 and running into the same problem. Can't find libstd++.so.6
or a shared like that. The thing is it's right there and the dynamic
linker sees it. Maybe ld isn't seeing it. Something's not right.
Hi. I haven't been following this discussion, and I only skimmed over
the mails, but could you please explain in what order are you building
stuff, as well as where your stuff is and exactly which thing is where.
This looks similar to a problem I used to have when I would try to
build a complete system, with a toolchain minisystem, in the wrong
place.
To wit, if you build the toolchain minisystem, chroot, then build the
system glibc in /{,usr}, you will have no problems. But, if you try to
build it in some other place: /some-other-place, the process will fail.
If you did stuff by the book, make sure to see if you properly
adjusted/readjusted the compiler. See chapter 6.10.
--
-Aleksandar Kuktin
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:02:58 -0400
Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote:
Now it's not glibc I am concerned about my new builds of c++ and
gfortran compilers are failing. C is the only thing that works. and
the g++-3.2.2 that came with RH9. I'm using it to compile gcc-4.5.3
and 4.6.1 and running into the same problem. Can't find libstd++.so.6
or a shared like that. The thing is it's right there and the dynamic
linker sees it. Maybe ld isn't seeing it. Something's not right.
Hi. I haven't been following this discussion, and I only skimmed over
the mails, but could you please explain in what order are you building
stuff, as well as where your stuff is and exactly which thing is
where.
This looks similar to a problem I used to have when I would try to
build a complete system, with a toolchain minisystem, in the wrong
place.
To wit, if you build the toolchain minisystem, chroot, then build the
system glibc in /{,usr}, you will have no problems. But, if you try to
build it in some other place: /some-other-place, the process will
fail.
If you did stuff by the book, make sure to see if you properly
adjusted/readjusted the compiler. See chapter 6.10.
Right now lfs is on hold. I'm just trying to build a native compiler
such as 4.5.3 or 4.6.1 and binutils-2.21.1. For my system to compile lfs
stuff on. I build it and install it in usr/local (remember this right now
has nothing to do with lfs) and I only get a working C compiler though I
used --enable-languages=c,c++ maybe I should go to http://gcc.gnu.org
Bill
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:55:29PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: Well yet again I'm having problems with glibc-2.13. Now it is saying that gcc has not supplied a header called cpuid.h. glibc gets a little tiring I guess the stable version has some bugs like the earlier stack problem. The configure script doesn't even finsh now. Bill I haven't built that version, but in a slightly older version of the book (12/2010) that header came from gcc pass 1 and was in /mnt/lfs/tools/lib/gcc/XXX/v.v.v/include where XXX was x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu for me (will be different if you are building 32-bit, maybe some sort of i?86) and v.v.v was the gcc version. Most likely, either your gcc installed to the wrong place, or you didn't install it all, or there was a difference in the value of $LFS between the gcc build and the glibc build, or, I suppose, the /tools symlink might be broken. If you are building as a normal user 'lfs' (i.e. not able to create files in the host system's '/') then you can run 'find' against /tools to look for cpuid.h. If it isn't present, look at the whole (host) system to see if you managed to install it somewhere else. If you have been able to write to somewhere other than /mnt/lfs then you probably have bigger problems. Alternatively, if this is still on the old system you mentioned earlier (redhat 9?), then because your host system is too old, it's possible that cpuid.h (and perhaps other things) did not get installed by gcc - if that is the case, you are out on your own in trying to continue. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it will need full logging so you can look at everything, good diagnostic skills, and some luck with googling for workarounds. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:55:29PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: Well yet again I'm having problems with glibc-2.13. Now it is saying that gcc has not supplied a header called cpuid.h. glibc gets a little tiring I guess the stable version has some bugs like the earlier stack problem. The configure script doesn't even finsh now. Bill I haven't built that version, but in a slightly older version of the book (12/2010) that header came from gcc pass 1 and was in /mnt/lfs/tools/lib/gcc/XXX/v.v.v/include where XXX was x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu for me (will be different if you are building 32-bit, maybe some sort of i?86) and v.v.v was the gcc version. Most likely, either your gcc installed to the wrong place, or you didn't install it all, or there was a difference in the value of $LFS between the gcc build and the glibc build, or, I suppose, the /tools symlink might be broken. If you are building as a normal user 'lfs' (i.e. not able to create files in the host system's '/') then you can run 'find' against /tools to look for cpuid.h. If it isn't present, look at the whole (host) system to see if you managed to install it somewhere else. If you have been able to write to somewhere other than /mnt/lfs then you probably have bigger problems. Alternatively, if this is still on the old system you mentioned earlier (redhat 9?), then because your host system is too old, it's possible that cpuid.h (and perhaps other things) did not get installed by gcc - if that is the case, you are out on your own in trying to continue. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it will need full logging so you can look at everything, good diagnostic skills, and some luck with googling for workarounds. Well I built gcc-4.5.2 with a gcc-3.4.6 compiler. I can rebuild it with a gcc-4.6.1 compiler I have tucked away. My linux system is old I know but I use some pretty up to date development tools including binutils-2.21.1. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:05:35PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: Well I built gcc-4.5.2 with a gcc-3.4.6 compiler. I can rebuild it with a gcc-4.6.1 compiler I have tucked away. My linux system is old I know but I use some pretty up to date development tools including binutils-2.21.1. In that case, the old versions are probably *not* the problem. You're hitting lots of problems, but we're having to guess because you didn't tell us that you'd added recent gcc and binutils. Gcc-4.5.2 should be perfectly good enough. I'm not sure which version of binutils you are installing in LFS, but using a *newer* binutils (or gcc, or even glibc) on the host system has been known to cause problems in the past. For the moment, I doubt it is the root cause of this failure. Please look at the other possible problems I mentioned : if you have followed the book's instructions with a recent toolchain, cpuid.h should have been installed somewhere. Again, you *appear* to be jumping onto the suggestions which you think are likely to be most helpful, and not taking time to consider the whole range of suggestions that are offered. I don't know how many people have built 6.8, but I still have the impression that your problems are down to errors in what you are doing, or problems with your host system. You never confirmed that your system meets the known requirements - we're trying to read between the lines, and some of the ideas we come up with may be inappropriate because we don't understand what you are running. One thing that you haven't yet stated explicitly: are you using a recent 2.6 kernel ? ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:05:35PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: Well I built gcc-4.5.2 with a gcc-3.4.6 compiler. I can rebuild it with a gcc-4.6.1 compiler I have tucked away. My linux system is old I know but I use some pretty up to date development tools including binutils-2.21.1. In that case, the old versions are probably *not* the problem. You're hitting lots of problems, but we're having to guess because you didn't tell us that you'd added recent gcc and binutils. Gcc-4.5.2 should be perfectly good enough. I'm not sure which version of binutils you are installing in LFS, but using a *newer* binutils (or gcc, or even glibc) on the host system has been known to cause problems in the past. For the moment, I doubt it is the root cause of this failure. Please look at the other possible problems I mentioned : if you have followed the book's instructions with a recent toolchain, cpuid.h should have been installed somewhere. Again, you *appear* to be jumping onto the suggestions which you think are likely to be most helpful, and not taking time to consider the whole range of suggestions that are offered. I don't know how many people have built 6.8, but I still have the impression that your problems are down to errors in what you are doing, or problems with your host system. You never confirmed that your system meets the known requirements - we're trying to read between the lines, and some of the ideas we come up with may be inappropriate because we don't understand what you are running. One thing that you haven't yet stated explicitly: are you using a recent 2.6 kernel ? On my host system? Oh no. The kernel that comes with RH9. 2.4.20-6. A redhat version of a 2.4 kernel. I would just install the latest gentoo but it's about as difficult if not more so than lfs. I have the minimal ISO and have to go online and download a couple of files and use nano. RH9 comes with pico the older version of nano. If I could just get a gentoo up and running with a C development environment I might be able to go ahead and build the lfs. But gentoo is another lfs like system. A learning experience for sure though. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:05:35PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: Well I built gcc-4.5.2 with a gcc-3.4.6 compiler. I can rebuild it with a gcc-4.6.1 compiler I have tucked away. My linux system is old I know but I use some pretty up to date development tools including binutils-2.21.1. In that case, the old versions are probably *not* the problem. You're hitting lots of problems, but we're having to guess because you didn't tell us that you'd added recent gcc and binutils. Gcc-4.5.2 should be perfectly good enough. I'm not sure which version of binutils you are installing in LFS, but using a *newer* binutils (or gcc, or even glibc) on the host system has been known to cause problems in the past. For the moment, I doubt it is the root cause of this failure. Please look at the other possible problems I mentioned : if you have followed the book's instructions with a recent toolchain, cpuid.h should have been installed somewhere. I found it. Just where it was supposed to be. But under the directory i686-pc-linux-gnu instead of i686-lfs-linux-gnu so when I built the gcc it's possibile I forgot to cross compile. Again, you *appear* to be jumping onto the suggestions which you think are likely to be most helpful, and not taking time to consider the whole range of suggestions that are offered. I don't know how many people have built 6.8, but I still have the impression that your problems are down to errors in what you are doing, or problems with your host system. You never confirmed that your system meets the known requirements - we're trying to read between the lines, and some of the ideas we come up with may be inappropriate because we don't understand what you are running. One thing that you haven't yet stated explicitly: are you using a recent 2.6 kernel ? ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Bill Cunningham wrote: One thing that you haven't yet stated explicitly: are you using a recent 2.6 kernel ? On my host system? Oh no. The kernel that comes with RH9. 2.4.20-6. Host System Requirements: Linux Kernel-2.6.22.5 (having been compiled with GCC-4.1.2 or greater) It's time for you to start over or go back to LFS 5.1. http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/5.1/LFS-BOOK-5.1-HTML/ Don't expect any help on a 7 year old system though. LFS has *never* supported building a Linux 2.6 based system from a 2.4 or earlier kernel. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Bruce Dubbs wrote: Bill Cunningham wrote: One thing that you haven't yet stated explicitly: are you using a recent 2.6 kernel ? On my host system? Oh no. The kernel that comes with RH9. 2.4.20-6. Host System Requirements: Linux Kernel-2.6.22.5 (having been compiled with GCC-4.1.2 or greater) It's time for you to start over or go back to LFS 5.1. http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs-museum/5.1/LFS-BOOK-5.1-HTML/ Don't expect any help on a 7 year old system though. LFS has *never* supported building a Linux 2.6 based system from a 2.4 or earlier kernel. Ok thanks all. I see. I will check it out. Once I build this 5.1 would I be able to go to 6.8 immediately? Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: glibc error again
On my host system? Oh no. The kernel that comes with RH9. 2.4.20-6. A redhat version of a 2.4 kernel. I would just install the latest gentoo but it's about as difficult if not more so than lfs. I have the minimal ISO and have to go online and download a couple of files and use nano. RH9 comes with pico the older version of nano. If I could just get a gentoo up and running with a C development environment I might be able to go ahead and build the lfs. But gentoo is another lfs like system. A learning experience for sure though. Bill, My suggestion to use the gentoo livedvd does not mean installing gentoo on your system, instead, the dvd contain the needed development tools to be used as is. The minimal iso you were using does not come with the development environment which is why I have suggested you download the dvd; it is a complete system which start in X so you can fire up a web browser at the LFS pages and start working. This is what I am using at the moment. Alain -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 20:37 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/glibc.html This case 'uname -m' and so on text is not working for me. Where should this configparams file be created. It's not being created anywhere for me. Bill If you're running a 32-bit x86 OS, then it will be in the current directory, which should be the glibc-build directory you just created and entered. If you're not running a 32-bit x86 OS, it won't be created at all. Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:34 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: /lfs/g or g is a separate build directory. I think this has something to do with the kernel headers. limits.h isn't being found. I copied and pasted things and I guess I should follow the book more closely. If you're looking for help, yeah - if you follow the book to the letter, it's a lot easier for us to know what's going on. Just because something looks like a minor change that can't affect anything, doesn't mean it won't have major effects. Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
Simon Geard wrote: On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 20:37 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/glibc.html This case 'uname -m' and so on text is not working for me. Where should this configparams file be created. It's not being created anywhere for me. Bill If you're running a 32-bit x86 OS, then it will be in the current directory, which should be the glibc-build directory you just created and entered. If you're not running a 32-bit x86 OS, it won't be created at all. Ok. It's there. I have solved this problem. And another has arisen. I am running an old RH 9 32 bit OS on a AMD athelon 64 bit address bus processor. So you can probably see why I want to learn to change and maybe even try clfs. Now the problem is with a directory inside. Glibc. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: glibc
Bill, Do you have a dvd burner in that machine? How about trying a recent livedvd to build LFS instead of using RH9 which is quite old? In my case, I will use the gentoo livedvd and I verified that it contain recent version of all the utilities needed to compile LFS (it does) and is available in both 32bit and 64bit. HTH Alain -Message d'origine- De : lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org [mailto:lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org] De la part de Bill Cunningham Envoyé : 26 juillet 2011 09:30 À : LFS Support List Objet : Re: glibc Simon Geard wrote: On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 20:37 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/glibc.html This case 'uname -m' and so on text is not working for me. Where should this configparams file be created. It's not being created anywhere for me. Bill If you're running a 32-bit x86 OS, then it will be in the current directory, which should be the glibc-build directory you just created and entered. If you're not running a 32-bit x86 OS, it won't be created at all. Ok. It's there. I have solved this problem. And another has arisen. I am running an old RH 9 32 bit OS on a AMD athelon 64 bit address bus processor. So you can probably see why I want to learn to change and maybe even try clfs. Now the problem is with a directory inside. Glibc. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
RE: glibc
Bill, Do you have a dvd burner in that machine? How about trying a recent livedvd to build LFS instead of using RH9 which is quite old? In my case, I will use the gentoo livedvd and I verified that it contain recent version of all the utilities needed to compile LFS (it does) and is available in both 32bit and 64bit. Forgot the url: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml Scroll at the bottom. Alain -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: Ok. It's there. I have solved this problem. And another has arisen. I am running an old RH 9 32 bit OS on a AMD athelon 64 bit address bus processor. (FYI: It's spelled Athlon, not Athelon.) The OS that you are using is not adquadate for building LFS 6.8. The book recommends a host system that is like or newer than LFS 6.3, which is dated around late 2007. Redhat 9 was released around 2003 or so, and that tells me right there that your host system is way too old to build on. While you could contune building, I'd recommend going and downloading the latest version of the Knoppix LiveCD (or LiveDVD if you prefer) from http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/. There is help at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix-info/index-en.html, and be sure to look at the cheatcodes for Knoppix. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- Are you a Gmail user? Please read this important notice: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/jstrap/gmail?31450. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
- Original Message - From: Alain Toussaint secur...@videotron.ca To: 'LFS Support List' lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:12 AM Subject: RE: glibc Bill, Do you have a dvd burner in that machine? How about trying a recent livedvd to build LFS instead of using RH9 which is quite old? In my case, I will use the gentoo livedvd and I verified that it contain recent version of all the utilities needed to compile LFS (it does) and is available in both 32bit and 64bit. I don't particularly care for fedora. I do have a gentoo DVD burn and the LFS live cd. But the development tools I am using on the RH9 are pretty up to date such as m4 make-3.82 new indent and gcc-4.6.0 and binutils-2.21. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:29:59 -0400 Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: I am using the stable 6.8 versions now and I keep getting this error when trying to compile glibc. printf_fp.c: In function '___printf_fp': printf_fp.c:643:17: warning: variable 'used_limbs' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] make[2]: *** No rule to make target `/lfs/include/linux/limits.h', needed by `/lfs/g/bits/stdio_lim.h'. Stop. make[1]: *** [stdio-common/subdir_lib] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 Does this make sense to anyone? /lfs/include? /lfs/g? No, that makes no sense at all. Why don't you follow the book? Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error again
Andrew Benton wrote: On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:29:59 -0400 Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: I am using the stable 6.8 versions now and I keep getting this error when trying to compile glibc. printf_fp.c: In function '___printf_fp': printf_fp.c:643:17: warning: variable 'used_limbs' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] make[2]: *** No rule to make target `/lfs/include/linux/limits.h', needed by `/lfs/g/bits/stdio_lim.h'. Stop. make[1]: *** [stdio-common/subdir_lib] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 Does this make sense to anyone? /lfs/include? /lfs/g? No, that makes no sense at all. Why don't you follow the book? /lfs/g or g is a separate build directory. I think this has something to do with the kernel headers. limits.h isn't being found. I copied and pasted things and I guess I should follow the book more closely. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc
2011/7/25 Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/glibc.html This case 'uname -m' and so on text is not working for me. Where should this configparams file be created. It's not being created anywhere for me. Bill According to the book, the file should be on the directory glibc-build, where you are supposed to be. Also, make sure that you're using backticks ( ` ) and not another symbol. If you don't know where they are on your keyboard, you can use the construction $() instead. Thus, the case code will be: case $(uname -m) in i?86) echo CFLAGS += -march=i486 -mtune=native configparms ;; esac Greetings, Juan. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: I got this error in my log after compiling glibc fine. And then trying to install it. What did I do or not do now? collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/g/nscd/nscd] Error 1 make[1]: *** [nscd/others] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Hi, Glad you are moving forward with your LFS build, but you are really not giving the gurus lurking on the listserv much to go by in terms of formulating an answer to your problem. Might I suggest the following as a starter: 1) What version of LFS are you building? 2) Have you deviated from the book (even in the slightest bit)? 3) You should probably read the article How To Ask Questions The Smart Way by Eric Steven Raymond as mentioned in the Essential Pre-Reading Hint in Section VI of the LFS book. In my experience, the people here are very helpful provided you follow the rules. If you post your problem, however, in terms of a nebulous demand you are likely to get flamed or ignored. Regards, mbw -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error
MBW wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bill Cunningham bill...@suddenlink.net wrote: I got this error in my log after compiling glibc fine. And then trying to install it. What did I do or not do now? collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/g/nscd/nscd] Error 1 make[1]: *** [nscd/others] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Hi, Glad you are moving forward with your LFS build, but you are really not giving the gurus lurking on the listserv much to go by in terms of formulating an answer to your problem. Might I suggest the following as a starter: 1) What version of LFS are you building? 2) Have you deviated from the book (even in the slightest bit)? No I did not. That is why I am so suprised in getting this error. I am not going by 6.8 but by the next upcoming version of LFS because there was a wget list there to download exactly what I needed. I am only using what is on that list. 3) You should probably read the article How To Ask Questions The Smart Way by Eric Steven Raymond as mentioned in the Essential Pre-Reading Hint in Section VI of the LFS book. In my experience, the people here are very helpful provided you follow the rules. If you post your problem, however, in terms of a nebulous demand you are likely to get flamed or ignored. Regards, mbw -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:03:19AM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: MBW wrote: 1) What version of LFS are you building? 2) Have you deviated from the book (even in the slightest bit)? No I did not. That is why I am so suprised in getting this error. I am not going by 6.8 but by the next upcoming version of LFS because there was a wget list there to download exactly what I needed. I am only using what is on that list. The development book might be broken, that is its nature. It is certainly less tested than a release. Sometimes, trivial differences in hardware or the host kernel can cause problems that only a very few people ever experience. This can also happen with releases, but the odds should be better. Your previous posts suggest you have experience, but it is not current [ specifically, you mentioned 2.4 kernel headers - LFS has been on 2.6 for *many* years, and a great many things about how we build have changed in that time ]. As package versions change, you need to refresh your experience - I've been out of active development for some months now, and I know that areas of my knowledge are now suspect. As a bystander, I have the impression you are taking some of the advice people have given you, but ignoring other advice. Often, the important advice for solving a problem comes in small pieces, from several different people. Respectfully, I suggest that you use a released version of the book at the moment, and do not make changes. When you have successfully built a recent system, plus enough other packages to make it useful to you, feel free to change whatever you wish - but try to change only small parts at one time, so that you can more easily debug the breakages which will happen. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc error
Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:03:19AM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: MBW wrote: 1) What version of LFS are you building? 2) Have you deviated from the book (even in the slightest bit)? No I did not. That is why I am so suprised in getting this error. I am not going by 6.8 but by the next upcoming version of LFS because there was a wget list there to download exactly what I needed. I am only using what is on that list. The development book might be broken, that is its nature. It is certainly less tested than a release. Sometimes, trivial differences in hardware or the host kernel can cause problems that only a very few people ever experience. This can also happen with releases, but the odds should be better. Your previous posts suggest you have experience, but it is not current [ specifically, you mentioned 2.4 kernel headers - LFS has been on 2.6 for *many* years, and a great many things about how we build have changed in that time ]. As package versions change, you need to refresh your experience - I've been out of active development for some months now, and I know that areas of my knowledge are now suspect. As a bystander, I have the impression you are taking some of the advice people have given you, but ignoring other advice. Often, the important advice for solving a problem comes in small pieces, from several different people. Respectfully, I suggest that you use a released version of the book at the moment, and do not make changes. When you have successfully built a recent system, plus enough other packages to make it useful to you, feel free to change whatever you wish - but try to change only small parts at one time, so that you can more easily debug the breakages which will happen. Sounds like a plan. The thing is there is no wget list for the crueent release 6.8 that I can see. I might have to download the required packages one by one. Bill -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc test error
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Andrea Bencini andrea.benc...@tin.it wrote: I have problems with glibc-2.3.6 under hostsystem Fedora 8 and lfs Version 6.2 Should I be worried about this or can I continue? Well, while your issue is that you don't have a c++ compiler installed, the more patent and bloody issue is this: YOU ARE BUILDING A VERY OLD AND OBSOLETE VERSION OF LFS. Always use the latest stable version of LFS, and it would help more if you tell us which chapter and section you are in. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- Are you a Gmail user? Please read this important notice: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/jstrap/gmail?31450. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc test error
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:12:59 +0200 Andrea Bencini andrea.benc...@tin.it wrote: Hi, I have problems with glibc-2.3.6 under hostsystem Fedora 8 and lfs Version 6.2 The last 58 lines of terminal output are: scripts/check-c++-types.sh: line 38: g++: command not found I'm guessing that this is your first pass through glibc in chapter 5 so the fact that you don't have g++ is not an issue, the first pass of gcc only installs the c compiler. I wouldn't waste time running the tests in chapter 5 Should I be worried about this or can I continue? No, you needn't be worried and no you shouldn't continue. LFS is from 5 years ago and is well past its sell by date. Start again with LFS-6.8. If Fedora 8 is too old to compile LFS-6.8 then download a more recent version. You don't have to install it, you could boot from a live CD to compile LFS. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc make check errors (LFS book v6.7)
I recall that I had these errors in one of my failed attempts. I did not find a cause, so I reformatted the target partition and started chapter six over. I attributed it to user error since I eventually got past it. -Brian -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc 5.7 [csu/subdir_lib] Error 2
Hi, thats not my problem because I'am always removing directory with build and source. I don't really know what to do. I'am getting same error on debian and Archlinux too. -- Martin Zajíc E-mail: zaj...@gmail.com Jabber: zaj...@gmail.com On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Martín Olmos phoenixze...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Martin i've had a similar problem before. What i did was delete the old glibc source file and starting fresh (uncompress again the glibc package, and follow the building process described in the book to compile and build it). Sometimes you have weird errors because you're compiling inside of a previous pass folder, So i recommend you to create a new folder and delete the previous compiled glibc library I hope this helps Best regards Phoenixzero -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc 5.7 [csu/subdir_lib] Error 2
Hi Martin i've had a similar problem before. What i did was delete the old glibc source file and starting fresh (uncompress again the glibc package, and follow the building process described in the book to compile and build it). Sometimes you have weird errors because you're compiling inside of a previous pass folder, So i recommend you to create a new folder and delete the previous compiled glibc library I hope this helps Best regards Phoenixzero 2011/2/3 Martin Zajíc ZAJCA zaj...@gmail.com Hi, me again now I'am stuck on glibc on chap 5.7 I'am getting this on make if test -r /mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1-BUILD/csu/abi-tag.h.new; then mv -f /mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1-BUILD/csu/abi-tag.h.new /mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1-BUILD/csu/abi-tag.h; \ else echo 2 'This configuration not matched in ../abi-tags'; exit 1; fi mv -f /mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1-BUILD/csu/version-info.hT /mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1-BUILD/csu/version-info.h make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1/csu' make[1]: *** [csu/subdir_lib] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/LFS/build/glibc-2.12.1' make: *** [all] Error 2 and many errors like this In file included from ./sysdeps/unix/sysdep.h:21:0, from ./sysdeps/unix/x86_64/sysdep.h:19, from sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/sysdep.h:23, from stdin:1: sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/syscall.h:25:24: fatal error: asm/unistd.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. I try to set thinks like CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash what i found on internet but it isn't work. stdout: configure and make http://pastebin.com/q2aHHiNg config.log http://pastebin.com/ej0yCiFx thank's for answers -- Martin Zajíc E-mail: zaj...@gmail.com Jabber: zaj...@gmail.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc stage2 problem
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Louis Davies wrote: Hi, I Have built LFS-6.5 and now I'm trying to build 6.7. In my opinion everything has gone right until section 6.9.1 in which, with the command grep Error glibc-check-log I obtain the following response: make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-float-out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ifloat-out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [math/tests] Error 2 Error 2 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/grp/testgrp.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [grp/tests] Error 2 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make: *** [check] I read in the book that The math tests sometimes fail when running on systems where the CPU is not a relatively new genuine Intel or authentic AMD processor. but my CPU is a genuine Intel Pentium E6500 operating at 2.93 GHz and my RAM is 1 GB. After having read many posts about similar problems I think I can go on, but I am not absolutely sure. Can anyone give me a good advice? Louis I guess you have made some decision yourself by now; I was watching for posts on this thread as I have a similar situation . I didn't have the math failures but I did have the testgrp failure that I didn't recall from previous builds. Later I had a segfault in the gcc tests. It didn't show in the test logs but did on the console and in the host syslog. This may have happened on previous builds , but gone unnoticed. I had 19 errors on the gcc testing and after booting the new system,recompiling and testing gcc it dropped to 13 lidmudflap errors. This makes me doubt the veracity of the testing on the the chroot'ed system for making decisions about the soundness of the build. I didn't redo glib, however. Since I was building with a LFS-6.7 host and doing a SVN build with jhalfs, none of this is probably germane to your situation.I think that probably the best test is that if the installed system performs adequately for your uses. --- Mike Hollis --- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc compile problem
2010/12/17 William Immendorf will.immend...@gmail.com On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Harry Wei code.xi...@gmail.com wrote: Switching to a newer version of LFS would not hurt, either. You know, i want to get it well so that i can do 6.7 :) Thing is, you can just switch to 6.7 right now, just get the new packages, reconfigure the LFS account, and remove and recreate the I have get it. That something like following may be useful to us ;-) *** LFS6.3 is used for ubuntu 10.04. I can prove it by following steps. In chapter 5, When compile gcc we can get it. ../gcc-4.4.3/configure \ --target=$LFS_TGT --prefix=/tools \ --disable-nls --disable-shared --disable-multilib \ --disable-decimal-float --disable-threads \ --disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp \ --disable-libgomp --enable-languages=c It means you must use gcc-4.4.3 to finish it. So i change my version to ubuntu10.04 :) $LFS/tools directory. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- Best Regards. Harry Wei. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc compile problem
2010/12/21 code.xiyou code.xi...@gmail.com 2010/12/17 William Immendorf will.immend...@gmail.com On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Harry Wei code.xi...@gmail.com wrote: Switching to a newer version of LFS would not hurt, either. You know, i want to get it well so that i can do 6.7 :) Thing is, you can just switch to 6.7 right now, just get the new packages, reconfigure the LFS account, and remove and recreate the I have get it. That something like following may be useful to us ;-) *** LFS6.3 is used for ubuntu 10.04. I am so sorry the LFS version should be LFS6.6. LFS6.3 is lower version for Ubuntu 10.04. I can prove it by following steps. In chapter 5, When compile gcc we can get it. ../gcc-4.4.3/configure \ --target=$LFS_TGT --prefix=/tools \ --disable-nls --disable-shared --disable-multilib \ --disable-decimal-float --disable-threads \ --disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp \ --disable-libgomp --enable-languages=c It means you must use gcc-4.4.3 to finish it. So i change my version to ubuntu10.04 :) $LFS/tools directory. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- Best Regards. Harry Wei. -- Best Regards. Harry Wei. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc compile problem
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Harry Wei code.xi...@gmail.com wrote: Switching to a newer version of LFS would not hurt, either. You know, i want to get it well so that i can do 6.7 :) Thing is, you can just switch to 6.7 right now, just get the new packages, reconfigure the LFS account, and remove and recreate the $LFS/tools directory. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc compile problem
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 03:10:13PM +0100, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:22:19 +0800 Harry Wei code.xi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi us, I do LFS6.3 these days. When i compile glibc-2.11.1, some errors happen like following. I have searched on the Internet but find nothing. I hope anyone can help me, thanks ;) Errors like following: ... [errors] With Best Regards. Harry Wei. You are probably using a host system toolchain. Make sure you have properly set your PATH environment variable. And generally double-check your steps so far. Thanks, i will check my steps before. Switching to a newer version of LFS would not hurt, either. You know, i want to get it well so that i can do 6.7 :) -- -Aleksandar Kuktin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc compilation ok on Fedora 14
Rosario Turco wrote: Sorry, my editor has removed the hyphens and spaces made. The exact command on Fedora 14 is (all lower case): ../glibc-2.12.1/configure --prefix=/tools \ --host = $ LFS_TGT --build =$(../ glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ --disable-profile --enable-add-ons \ --enable-kernel = 2.6.22.5 --with-headers=/tools /include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes libc_cv_c_cleanup= yes libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=no Well there are still errors. There are unwanted spaces around the = in line 2 (2 places), line 4, and line 5. There is a missing backslash on line 5. There are also extra spaces in line 2 before glibc and in line 4 before the /include. You have to be extremely precise. On extra, missing, or changed character, including a case change, can make the system fail. Some programs are more forgiving than others, but you have to study the documentation for each application to know which. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc compilation ok on Fedora 14
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 11:45 -0500, Neal Murphy wrote: On Sunday 05 December 2010 10:55:13 Rosario Turco wrote: ../glibc-2.12.1/configure - prefix = / tools \ - Host = $ LFS_TGT - build =$(../ glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ - Disable-profile - enable-add-ons \ - Enable-kernel = 2.6.22.5 - with-headers = / tools / include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind libc_cv_c_cleanup = yes = yes libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute = no I surely hope the embedded spaces and lost hyphens are a result of language translation. Most likely a 'helpful' email program. The extra spaces are a novelty, but I know Outlook is a terrible offender when it comes to capitalising sentences for you, and for replacing paired dashes with em-dash (which then gets converted to a single-dash for ASCII encoding). Maybe it's useful for business use, but it's awful for technical content. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc compilation ok on Fedora 14
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:29:26 + (UTC) Rosario Turco rosario_tu...@virgilio.it wrote: libc_cv_visibility_attribute libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute = yes = no Do you mean libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=no or libc_cv_visibility_attribute=no libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=yes Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc compilation ok on Fedora 14
Andrew Benton b3nton at gmail.com writes: On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:29:26 + (UTC) Rosario Turco rosario_turco at virgilio.it wrote: libc_cv_visibility_attribute libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute = yes = no Do you mean libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=no or libc_cv_visibility_attribute=no libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=yes Andy ../glibc-2.12.1/configure - prefix = / tools \ - Host = $ LFS_TGT - build =$(../ glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ - Disable-profile - enable-add-ons \ - Enable-kernel = 2.6.22.5 - with-headers = / tools / include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind libc_cv_c_cleanup = yes = yes libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute = no -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc compilation ok on Fedora 14
On Sunday 05 December 2010 10:55:13 Rosario Turco wrote: ../glibc-2.12.1/configure - prefix = / tools \ - Host = $ LFS_TGT - build =$(../ glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ - Disable-profile - enable-add-ons \ - Enable-kernel = 2.6.22.5 - with-headers = / tools / include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind libc_cv_c_cleanup = yes = yes libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute = no I surely hope the embedded spaces and lost hyphens are a result of language translation. Otherwise, I'm not sure that command has any chance of working. Options are introduced with --, not -. The option names are lower case (though this *might* not matter). The configure command's fifth line is missing a \ continuation character, and it has an extra yes. Correcting all that results in: ../glibc-2.12.1/configure --prefix=/tools \ --host=$LFS_TGT --build=$(../glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ --disable-profile --enable-add-ons \ --enable-kernel=2.6.22.5 --with-headers=/tools/include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes \ libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=no Syntax is extremely important. As with humans, if you don't 'speak' the language correctly, the computer will not do what you expect. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc compilation ok on Fedora 14
Neal Murphy wrote: On Sunday 05 December 2010 10:55:13 Rosario Turco wrote: ../glibc-2.12.1/configure - prefix = / tools \ - Host = $ LFS_TGT - build =$(../ glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ - Disable-profile - enable-add-ons \ - Enable-kernel = 2.6.22.5 - with-headers = / tools / include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind libc_cv_c_cleanup = yes = yes libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute = no I surely hope the embedded spaces and lost hyphens are a result of language translation. Otherwise, I'm not sure that command has any chance of working. Options are introduced with --, not -. The option names are lower case (though this *might* not matter). The configure command's fifth line is missing a \ continuation character, and it has an extra yes. Correcting all that results in: ../glibc-2.12.1/configure --prefix=/tools \ --host=$LFS_TGT --build=$(../glibc-2.12.1/scripts/config.guess) \ --disable-profile --enable-add-ons \ --enable-kernel=2.6.22.5 --with-headers=/tools/include \ libc_cv_forced_unwind libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes \ libc_cv_visibility_attribute=yes libc_cv_broken_visibility_attribute=no Syntax is extremely important. As with humans, if you don't 'speak' the language correctly, the computer will not do what you expect. I agree. Computers do exactly what you tell them to do, not what you think you told them to do. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors
Hi, This is my first crack at LFS. I'm wandering if the error associated with the link below was ever resolved? *Previous and related errors:* http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/msg14143.html *My setup:* - Book 6.7 - 64 bit -- athlon x2 - host kernel = 2.6.31.5 - Glibc-2.12.1 - Make-3.82 *My Errors: Chapter 6, section 9* root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-tgmath2.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [math/tests] Error 2 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock6.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock7.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock9.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock11.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock12.out] Error 11 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock14.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [nptl/tests] Error 2 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/elf/tst-xmmymm.out] Error 1 make[1]: *** [elf/tests] Error 2 make: *** [check] Error 2 Regards, John -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors
FYI: The compiler segfault below created one of my test errors that I reported earlier. -- This is one I guess I can legitimately ignore? Not sure about the remaining errors: make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock6.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock7.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock9.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock11.out] Error 1 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock12.out] Error 11 make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock14.out] Error 1 gcc test-tgmath2.c -c -std=gnu99 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -Wall -Winline -Wwrite-strings -fmerge-all-constants -g -Wstrict-prototypes -fno-builtin -Wno-uninitialized -D__NO_MATH_INLINES -D__LIBC_INTERNAL_MATH_INLINES -I../include -I/sources/glibc-build/math -I/sources/glibc-build -I../sysdeps/x86_64/elf -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/wordsize-64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../nptl/sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../sysdeps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/common -I../sysdeps/unix/mman -I../sysdeps/unix/inet -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/x86_64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/posix -I../sysdeps/x86_64/fpu -I../sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch -I../nptl/sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/ieee754 -I../sysdeps/generic/elf -I../sysdeps/generic -I../nptl -I.. -I../libio -I. -D_LIBC_REENTRANT -include ../include/libc-symbols.h -DNOT_IN_libc=1-o /sources/glibc-build/math/test-tgmath2.o -MD -MP -MF /sources/glibc-build/math/test-tgmath2.o.dt -MT /sources/glibc-build/math/test-tgmath2.o test-tgmath2.c: In function 'test': test-tgmath2.c:94:1: note: variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without test-tgmath2.c:94:1: note: variable tracking size limit exceeded test-tgmath2.c:336:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-tgmath2.o] Error 1 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc (stage 2) make install error
Casey, Hmm... it appears that you didn't run one of the commands given in the book. QUOTING FROM THE BOOK: Section 6.9 When running *make install*, a script called test-installation.pl performs a small sanity test on our newly installed Glibc. However, because our toolchain still points to the /tools directory, the sanity test would be carried out against the wrong Glibc. We can force the script to check the Glibc we have just installed with the following: DL=$(readelf -l /bin/sh | sed -n 's...@.*interpret.*/tools\(.*\)]...@\1@p') sed -i s|libs -o|libs -L/usr/lib -Wl,-dynamic-linker=$DL -o| \ scripts/test-installation.pl unset DL -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
Hi. Well, the untarred files have timestamps of months ago, when the developers made the package. Even untarring with -m and getting the current time makes no difference. But I can post the part where it repeats: The untarred timestamps are irrelevant. It is the make target timestamp. The exact problem happened before at the exact same place. Setting the system clock correctly apparently was the fix: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-May/038711.html http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-May/038653.html Just a thought: The time from date and hwclock can be different. hwclock Display Hardware Clock. hwclock --hctosys Set the System Time from the Hardware Clock. hwclock --systohc Set the Hardware Clock to the current System Time. - I read the messages but I couldn't make it work. I tried many things, playing with the hwclock settings, UTC/non UTC clock in the host system, putting TC=UTC before configure, and using several different settings in configure. I tried this because the configure in the first pass works always, and any other combination goes to the loop, always too. This was 64bits. I tried i686 with a 32 bit host, and everything has gone perfectly well. So, maybe it's clock related, but also architecture related. I'll try building for 64 bits again. We'll see... Alberto -- duende a rayas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
Sometimes I try the 20-second fix-all: Shutdown. Turn off all power to all hardware. After 20 seconds, power-up and boot. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:18:26PM -0400, linux fan wrote: Sometimes I try the 20-second fix-all: Shutdown. Turn off all power to all hardware. After 20 seconds, power-up and boot. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Aha, the Microsoft solution!! You have moved your mouse, please reboot the computer for the changes to take effect Mike H. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
On 10/20/10, Mike Hollis zzf...@embarqmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:18:26PM -0400, linux fan wrote: Sometimes I try the 20-second fix-all: Shutdown. Turn off all power to all hardware. After 20 seconds, power-up and boot. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Aha, the Microsoft solution!! You have moved your mouse, please reboot the computer for the changes to take effect Mike H. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Well, it has been known to work. Paper jam in cheap printer and it starts jumping around. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:57:30 +0200 Alberto Hernando pajaro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I'm building lfs-6.7, and I'm stuck compiling glibc in the chroot. I have had it running for over 24 hours, and make isn't complete yet. I don't want to stop it because there is no error, but I copied the lfs folder to another point and started another building. Same result. Make is all the time leaving sources/glibc/ntpl directory. I don't think it's doing anything new. The build is for intel 64 bit, with 4 Gb of ram. So far, all went well, with more or less the times that the book says. And in my case, 1 SBU is about 3 minutes. Any idea? Thanks The build system entered a infinite loop? Since Make determines what need to be build/rebuild by examining dependencies and timestamps, perhaps the timestamping of you files is broke? So that Make keeps thinking source files are newer that object files. How exactly did you enter chroot? -- -Aleksandar Kuktin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Alberto Hernando pajaro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I'm building lfs-6.7, and I'm stuck compiling glibc in the chroot. I have had it running for over 24 hours, and make isn't complete yet. I don't want to stop it because there is no error, but I copied the lfs folder to another point and started another building. Same result. Make is all the time leaving sources/glibc/ntpl directory. I don't think it's doing anything new. Something like this happened to a friend of mine. He had installed some boxed distro merely for the sake of attempting an installation of LFS. But he never set the host system's time properly. So make would loop trying to build packages with timestamps from the future. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:59:02 +0200 Alberto Hernando pajaro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. I've put the instructions from the book in a script: baratito:~# cat chroot_lfs.sh #!/bin/bash LFS=/media/lfs MAKEFLAGS=-j 2 mount -v --bind /dev $LFS/dev mount -vt devpts devpts $LFS/dev/pts mount -vt tmpfs shm $LFS/dev/shm mount -vt proc proc $LFS/proc mount -vt sysfs sysfs $LFS/sys chroot $LFS /tools/bin/env -i \ HOME=/root TERM=$TERM MAKEFLAGS=$MAKEFLAGS PARALLELMFLAGS=$MAKEFLAGS PS1='\u:\w\$ ' \ PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/tools/bin \ /tools/bin/bash --login +h I just run it to enter the chroot. About timestamps: baratito:~# date vie oct 15 13:55:00 CEST 2010 baratito:~# sh chroot_lfs sh: chroot_lfs: No existe el fichero o el directorio baratito:~# date vie oct 15 13:55:10 CEST 2010 baratito:~# sh chroot_lfs.sh /dev on /media/lfs/dev type none (rw,bind) devpts on /media/lfs/dev/pts type devpts (rw) shm on /media/lfs/dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) proc on /media/lfs/proc type proc (rw) sysfs on /media/lfs/sys type sysfs (rw) root:/# date Fri Oct 15 11:55:15 UTC 2010 There is really a difference. Perhaps the loop appears because the build takes more than 2 hours? Anyway, I did all the building with the wrong hour and timestamp. And the chroot isn't in the future but the past. Looks like the right place to look, but what? Alberto This actually does make sense, but only if a premise holds: that you untar the sources with the real time, and try building them with the 2-hours-in-the-past chroot time (however, in reality, 10h UTC and 12h CEST are one and the same time, but filesystem does not account for timegroups). It is simple to check this: ls -l $GLIBC_SOURCE_DIR, and see the times. If it holds true (sources have timestamps two hours in the future), then that's you problem. Perhaps untaring them once you enter chroot will do the trick (if you already do that, then the solution is more complicated). -- -Aleksandar Kuktin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
Hi. Well, the untarred files have timestamps of months ago, when the developers made the package. Even untarring with -m and getting the current time makes no difference. But I can post the part where it repeats: make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1/nptl' make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1/nptl' /tools/bin/install -c -m 644 ../include/limits.h /usr/include/limits.h gawk -f ../scripts/gen-as-const.awk ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/structsem.sym \ | gcc -S -o /sources/glibc-build/structsem.hT3 -std=gnu99 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -Wall -Winline -Wwrite-strings -fmerge-all-constants -g -Wstrict-prototypes -I../include -I/sources/glibc-build/nptl -I/sources/glibc-build -I../sysdeps/x86_64/elf -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/wordsize-64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../nptl/sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../sysdeps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/common -I../sysdeps/unix/mman -I../sysdeps/unix/inet -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/x86_64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/posix -I../sysdeps/x86_64/fpu -I../sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch -I../nptl/sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/ieee754 -I../sysdeps/generic/elf -I../sysdeps/generic -I../nptl -I.. -I../libio -I. -D_LIBC_REENTRANT -include ../include/libc-symbols.h -x c - \ -MD -MP -MF /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.dT -MT '/sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.d /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h' gawk -f ../scripts/gen-as-const.awk ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/pthread-pi-defines.sym \ | gcc -S -o /sources/glibc-build/pthread-pi-defines.hT3 -std=gnu99 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -Wall -Winline -Wwrite-strings -fmerge-all-constants -g -Wstrict-prototypes -I../include -I/sources/glibc-build/nptl -I/sources/glibc-build -I../sysdeps/x86_64/elf -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/wordsize-64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../nptl/sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../sysdeps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/common -I../sysdeps/unix/mman -I../sysdeps/unix/inet -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/x86_64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/posix -I../sysdeps/x86_64/fpu -I../sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch -I../nptl/sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/ieee754 -I../sysdeps/generic/elf -I../sysdeps/generic -I../nptl -I.. -I../libio -I. -D_LIBC_REENTRANT -include ../include/libc-symbols.h -x c - \ -MD -MP -MF /sources/glibc-build/pthread-pi-defines.h.dT -MT '/sources/glibc-build/pthread-pi-defines.h.d /sources/glibc-build/pthread-pi-defines.h' sed -n 's/^.*@@@name@@@\([...@]*\)@@@value@ @@[^0-9Xxa-fA-F-]*\([0-9Xxa-fA-F-][0-9Xxa-fA-F-]*\).*@@@end@@@.*$/#define \1 \2/p' \ /sources/glibc-build/structsem.hT3 /sources/glibc-build/structsem.hT rm -f /sources/glibc-build/structsem.hT3 sed -e 's@ /sources/glibc-build/@ $(common-objpfx)@g' -e 's...@^/sources/glibc-build/@$(common-objpfx)@g' -e 's@ *\.\.\/\([^ \]*\)@ $(..)\...@g' -e 's...@^\.\.\/\([^ \]*\)@$(..)\...@g' \ /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.dT /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.dT2 rm -f /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.dT mv -f /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.dT2 /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h.d mv -f /sources/glibc-build/structsem.hT /sources/glibc-build/structsem.h gawk -f ../scripts/gen-as-const.awk ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/lowlevelrobustlock.sym \ | gcc -S -o /sources/glibc-build/lowlevelrobustlock.hT3 -std=gnu99 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -Wall -Winline -Wwrite-strings -fmerge-all-constants -g -Wstrict-prototypes -I../include -I/sources/glibc-build/nptl -I/sources/glibc-build -I../sysdeps/x86_64/elf -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/wordsize-64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../nptl/sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux -I../sysdeps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/common -I../sysdeps/unix/mman -I../sysdeps/unix/inet -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/x86_64 -I../nptl/sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/unix -I../sysdeps/posix -I../sysdeps/x86_64/fpu -I../sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch -I../nptl/sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/ieee754 -I../sysdeps/generic/elf -I../sysdeps/generic -I../nptl -I.. -I../libio -I. -D_LIBC_REENTRANT -include
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
On 10/15/10, Alberto Hernando pajaro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. Well, the untarred files have timestamps of months ago, when the developers made the package. Even untarring with -m and getting the current time makes no difference. But I can post the part where it repeats: The untarred timestamps are irrelevant. It is the make target timestamp. The exact problem happened before at the exact same place. Setting the system clock correctly apparently was the fix: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-May/038711.html http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-May/038653.html Just a thought: The time from date and hwclock can be different. hwclock Display Hardware Clock. hwclock --hctosys Set the System Time from the Hardware Clock. hwclock --systohc Set the Hardware Clock to the current System Time. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc: 16.9 SBU, really?
Also, not forgetting to remove any previously unpacked glibc sources and glibc-build directories before unpacking with tar. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Makefile_fix Patch Doesn't Appear to be Available for Download
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Dan McGhee beesn...@grm.net wrote: The patch is in the wget-list but I couldn't find it on any of the LFS download sites. Is there another way, about which I have forgotten, to get it? Well, I don't know where the heck the patch came from, so I'll just wait untill Matt gets the patch ready. But we would like it soon, as I'm getting impatient for it... -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Makefile_fix Patch Doesn't Appear to be Available for Download
On 4 August 2010 17:23, William Immendorf Well, I don't know where the heck the patch came from, so I'll just wait untill Matt gets the patch ready. But we would like it soon, as I'm getting impatient for it... Yeah, I suspect make-3.82 will turn out to be too close to the bleeding edge. AFAICS, only Mandriva are using it (not necessarily for glibc, but make-3.82 is in 'cooker') and most of us don't have a clue what needs to be changed. ĸen (currently bleeding with glibc-2.12.1) -- After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Makefile_fix Patch Doesn't Appear to be Available for Download
On 08/04/2010 12:11 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: Yeah, I suspect make-3.82 will turn out to be too close to the bleeding edge. AFAICS, only Mandriva are using it (not necessarily for glibc, but make-3.82 is in 'cooker') and most of us don't have a clue what needs to be changed. Does this mean that we should revert to make-3.81 and proceed merrily from there? Maybe just continue on with the current SVN and document failures to the list? I'm building x86_64 and there was a note on the ticket that glibc built fine without the patch. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Makefile_fix Patch Doesn't Appear to be Available for Download
On 4 August 2010 19:23, Dan McGhee beesn...@grm.net wrote: Does this mean that we should revert to make-3.81 and proceed merrily from there? Maybe just continue on with the current SVN and document failures to the list? I'm building x86_64 and there was a note on the ticket that glibc built fine without the patch. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page I'm going with Andy's first suggestion (see the other thread). ĸen (mightily confused by the gmail interface changes) -- After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Makefile_fix Patch Doesn't Appear to be Available for Download
On 04/08/10 20:42, Ken Moffat wrote: On 4 August 2010 19:23, Dan McGheebeesn...@grm.net wrote: Does this mean that we should revert to make-3.81 and proceed merrily from there? Maybe just continue on with the current SVN and document failures to the list? I'm building x86_64 and there was a note on the ticket that glibc built fine without the patch. I'm going with Andy's first suggestion (see the other thread). ĸen (mightily confused by the gmail interface changes) I would suggest this sed, it works for me: sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n\ttouch $...@\n$/' manual/Makefile Run that in the glibc sources, before you cd ../glibc-build I used it to compile this system and so far things have gone Ok. procps needed a sed: sed -i 's:e \*/m:e proc/module.mk ps/m:' Makefile But other than those 2 things, most other things seem Ok with make-3.82 Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Makefile_fix Patch Doesn't Appear to be Available for Download
On 4 August 2010 23:46, Andrew Benton b3n...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/08/10 20:42, Ken Moffat wrote: On 4 August 2010 19:23, Dan McGheebeesn...@grm.net wrote: Does this mean that we should revert to make-3.81 and proceed merrily from there? Maybe just continue on with the current SVN and document failures to the list? I'm building x86_64 and there was a note on the ticket that glibc built fine without the patch. I'm going with Andy's first suggestion (see the other thread). ĸen (mightily confused by the gmail interface changes) I would suggest this sed, it works for me: sed -i 's/ot \$/ot:\n\ttouch $...@\n$/' manual/Makefile Run that in the glibc sources, before you cd ../glibc-build I used it to compile this system and so far things have gone Ok. procps needed a sed: sed -i 's:e \*/m:e proc/module.mk ps/m:' Makefile But other than those 2 things, most other things seem Ok with make-3.82 Andy -- Thanks - I'll leave Matt to decide what he's going to do about the glibc changes. My base LFS system (apart from the kernel) has now built. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
On 14/07/10 01:30, garth scott wrote: I am still getting this warning: configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: see the Autoconf documentation configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: section Present But Cannot Be Compiled configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: in the future, the compiler will take Does this cause any problems? Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors
Dan McGhee wrote: I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite. I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build. These are the last three lines of the test log: make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.11.2/glibc-2.11.2' make: *** [check] Error 2 I don't know if the test suite completed or not. At any rate I received the documented and ignored posix errors, but, in addition, there were a series of tst-rwlock??.out errors. My searching and googling have uncovered a couple of things. The first is a patch (or in the case of LFS a sed command) applied to Make-3.81 to prevent testing errors especially in glibc after 2.11.1. This sed is applied in Chapter 6 for Make-3.81, but not in Chapter 5. Should it be? Interesting observation. Maybe it should. Second, I found a report by Bruce dated Jun 28 on gmane. He documented a successful SVN build but expressed concern over the glibc errors. He then listed the errors and they are the same as mine. Here is the list from Bruce's report: make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[3]:* [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock6.out] Error 1 make[3]:* [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock7.out] Error 1 make[3]:* [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock9.out] Error 1 make[3]:* [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock11.out] Error 1 make[3]:* [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock12.out] Error 11 make[3]:* [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock14.out] Error 1 The only difference is that he received his at the make[3] level and I got mine at make[2]. In this report he said, Automake failures are the usual suspects. I received no build errors. I do have a failed install, but that's a More Control and Package User problem. (I'll start a different thread for that one.) Does anyone know of any reason or fixes for these glibc errors? Would it help to rebuild the Chapter 5 Make-3.81 using the patch and sed command and retry glibc in Chapter 6? If you do rebuild the Chapter 5 make and try the Chapter 6 glibc tests again, I'd appreciate knowing the results. However, I don't think this is what is causing the glibc test errors. I was able to duplicate at least some of the errors on the command line. IIRC, there was a seg fault. Looking at the code, I suspect something between the kernel and glibc. Even though we chroot to isolate the filesystem in Chapter 6, we can't isolate from the kernel. One way to approach that problem is to build the current kernel from the host system and reboot to that using the host filesystem before starting an LFS build. I have not tried that yet for the current svn, so I don't know it that fixes the problem or not. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors
On 07/14/2010 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: If you do rebuild the Chapter 5 make and try the Chapter 6 glibc tests again, I'd appreciate knowing the results. However, I don't think this is what is causing the glibc test errors. I was able to duplicate at least some of the errors on the command line. IIRC, there was a seg fault. You're right it may not be causing the errors, but it won't hurt to try. I'll to it twice--one with just the patch and the next time the patch and sed command just to see if there are any differences. Then I'll post. Looking at the code, I suspect something between the kernel and glibc. Even though we chroot to isolate the filesystem in Chapter 6, we can't isolate from the kernel. One way to approach that problem is to build the current kernel from the host system and reboot to that using the host filesystem before starting an LFS build. Reading this I forgot to mention my host system. It's Ubuntu 10.04 and I'm running Ubuntu's latest version of 2.6.32-23-generic (wish I hadn't wiped out my CLFS build). I'm supplying this info now because in my research I found some references in the LFS archives about PS1 and other things in Ubuntu 10.04. I have the time to recompile the kernel, I'll just have to get the source package. Do you have any ideas on what you think might need to be changed in the kernel .config? Of course, I can switch to another Ubuntu kernel if that might be a good troubleshooting technique. But just let me see if I'm understanding what you're suggesting. 1. Compile and install a kernel in the host system. 2. Reboot using the newly compiled kernel and still using Ubuntu 10.04. 3. Build LFS If this is what you're suggesting, I can do it. I'm up to only Chapter 6.9 in my build and won't lose much time at all. In fact, I have plenty of time. begin WhineI injured myself with the horses last weekend and I'm moving pretty slow. In fact, I'm just watching the grass grow.end Whine I have not tried that yet for the current svn, so I don't know it that fixes the problem or not. -- Bruce Thanks for the response, Bruce. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors
Dan McGhee wrote: Reading this I forgot to mention my host system. It's Ubuntu 10.04 and I'm running Ubuntu's latest version of 2.6.32-23-generic (wish I hadn't wiped out my CLFS build). I'm supplying this info now because in my research I found some references in the LFS archives about PS1 and other things in Ubuntu 10.04. I have the time to recompile the kernel, I'll just have to get the source package. Do you have any ideas on what you think might need to be changed in the kernel .config? Of course, I can switch to another Ubuntu kernel if that might be a good troubleshooting technique. Ubuntu, like most distros uses an initrd and lots of modules. I'd try to make a kernel that works without modules or an initrd by looking at lsmod. You may also want to look in /boot for the config file and do a make oldconfig with that. But just let me see if I'm understanding what you're suggesting. 1. Compile and install a kernel in the host system. 2. Reboot using the newly compiled kernel and still using Ubuntu 10.04. 3. Build LFS Yes. I'm just suggesting that as a potential solution. Another possible solution is to try building glibc with an older version of gcc, say 4.4.1. I had a problem with the kernel and gcc-4.5.0 and it finally worked out that gcc-4.5.0 optimized in a way to make the kernel crash when built with the -Os (default) option on x86_64 processors. This means that thee may be an error in the glibc tests. If it is, I'll bet the error is common to all the failures we are seeing. If this is what you're suggesting, I can do it. I'm up to only Chapter 6.9 in my build and won't lose much time at all. In fact, I have plenty of time. begin WhineI injured myself with the horses last weekend and I'm moving pretty slow. In fact, I'm just watching the grass grow.end Whine I hope you get better soon. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors: [SOLVED]--maybe
On 07/14/2010 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Dan McGhee wrote: I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite. I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build. These are the last three lines of the test log: make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.11.2/glibc-2.11.2' make: *** [check] Error 2 I don't know if the test suite completed or not. At any rate I received the documented and ignored posix errors, but, in addition, there were a series of tst-rwlock??.out errors. My searching and googling have uncovered a couple of things. The first is a patch (or in the case of LFS a sed command) applied to Make-3.81 to prevent testing errors especially in glibc after 2.11.1. This sed is applied in Chapter 6 for Make-3.81, but not in Chapter 5. Should it be? Interesting observation. Maybe it should. If you do rebuild the Chapter 5 make and try the Chapter 6 glibc tests again, I'd appreciate knowing the results. However, I don't think this is what is causing the glibc test errors. I did the rebuild of Chapter 5 make twice. Once using only the patch from Ch. 6 and then with both the patch and the sed command from Ch. 6. There was no change in the glibc tests. However, after applying the patch and the sed command, make check for make worked in Ch. 5. It had failed before on recursion errors. So, just for the heck of it, it might not be a bad idea to put it in Ch. 5. I was able to duplicate at least some of the errors on the command line. IIRC, there was a seg fault. Looking at the code, I suspect something between the kernel and glibc. Even though we chroot to isolate the filesystem in Chapter 6, we can't isolate from the kernel. One way to approach that problem is to build the current kernel from the host system and reboot to that using the host filesystem before starting an LFS build. I have not tried that yet for the current svn, so I don't know it that fixes the problem or not. As I said before, after my rebuild of Make-3.81 there was not difference in the behavior of the glibc tests. However, on a lark, I just decided to run make -k check with the TIMEOUT set. There were no test failures. Not even the 'posix' ones. I would seem that things are fixed and I can go merrily on my way. But, Bruce, your comments kicked in my engineer. Is there really a problem between glibc, gcc and the kernel? Does setting the TIMEOUT variable merely mask the problem by making the tests pass? I follow instructions really well, but I'm have no clue about how all these things work with the kernel. I'd be more than happy to try things with a HOWTO attached, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do any independent troubleshooting to test the validity of my questions. Thanks for the help, Bruce. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Testing Errors: [SOLVED]--maybe
Dan McGhee wrote: On 07/14/2010 12:31 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Dan McGhee wrote: I got some interesting results when I ran the glibc-2.11.2 test suite. I'm conducting a 64-bit SVN build. These are the last three lines of the test log: make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/glibc-2.11.2/glibc-2.11.2' make: *** [check] Error 2 I don't know if the test suite completed or not. At any rate I received the documented and ignored posix errors, but, in addition, there were a series of tst-rwlock??.out errors. My searching and googling have uncovered a couple of things. The first is a patch (or in the case of LFS a sed command) applied to Make-3.81 to prevent testing errors especially in glibc after 2.11.1. This sed is applied in Chapter 6 for Make-3.81, but not in Chapter 5. Should it be? Interesting observation. Maybe it should. If you do rebuild the Chapter 5 make and try the Chapter 6 glibc tests again, I'd appreciate knowing the results. However, I don't think this is what is causing the glibc test errors. I did the rebuild of Chapter 5 make twice. Once using only the patch from Ch. 6 and then with both the patch and the sed command from Ch. 6. There was no change in the glibc tests. However, after applying the patch and the sed command, make check for make worked in Ch. 5. It had failed before on recursion errors. So, just for the heck of it, it might not be a bad idea to put it in Ch. 5. From your results, I don't see where we gain anything by adding the patch to Chapter 5. We don't recommend running tests until Chapter 6 and nothing breaks between installing make in C5 vs C6. Tests are generally extreme cases. Just because deep recursion fails in the tests in C5, doesn't mean anything else will. As I said before, after my rebuild of Make-3.81 there was not difference in the behavior of the glibc tests. However, on a lark, I just decided to run make -k check with the TIMEOUT set. There were no test failures. Not even the 'posix' ones. TIMEOUT or TIMEOUTFACTOR? What value? 16? I would seem that things are fixed and I can go merrily on my way. But, Bruce, your comments kicked in my engineer. Is there really a problem between glibc, gcc and the kernel? Does setting the TIMEOUT variable merely mask the problem by making the tests pass? I follow instructions really well, but I'm have no clue about how all these things work with the kernel. I'd be more than happy to try things with a HOWTO attached, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do any independent troubleshooting to test the validity of my questions. My errors were of the form: GCONV_PATH=/sources/glibc-build/iconvdata LC_ALL=C /sources/glibc-build/elf/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --library-path /sources/glibc-build:/sources/glibc-build/math: /sources/glibc-build/elf: /sources/glibc-build/dlfcn: /sources/glibc-build/nss: /sources/glibc-build/nis: /sources/glibc-build/rt: /sources/glibc-build/resolv: /sources/glibc-build/crypt: /sources/glibc-build/nptl /sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock6 /sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock6.out Didn't expect signal from child: got `Segmentation fault' make[3]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/nptl/tst-rwlock6.out] Error 1 I don't see how a TIMEOUT change would fix that. I'll also note that a 2nd make check doesn't seem to actually run the tests. I had to rebuild to get the tests to run. I'll note that using Linux 2.6.30.2-lfs65, I get: cd /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/ ./tst-rwlock6 1st timedwrlock done 1st timedrdlock done 2nd timedwrlock done child calling timedrdlock started thread 1st child timedrdlock done 2nd child timedrdlock done joined thread 1st timedwrlock done 1st timedrdlock done 2nd timedwrlock done child calling timedrdlock started thread 1st child timedrdlock done 2nd child timedrdlock done joined thread 1st timedwrlock done 1st timedrdlock done 2nd timedwrlock done child calling timedrdlock started thread 1st child timedrdlock done 2nd child timedrdlock done joined thread So there is no segfault there. The other tests seem to run OK too. The bottom line is that this may just be a test harness problem or a glibc-kernel interaction problem or something else. I'm waiting for a new glibc release to see if the problems get fixed. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
Thanks for the response, but I think I am going to take the rest of the week to brush up on some basic bash scripting. I have a feeling that I jumped into this a bit quick. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
This is the out-put of version-check.sh bash, version 4.1.5(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/dash Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.1-system.20100303 yacc not found bzip2, Version 1.0.5, 10-Dec-2007. Coreutils: 7.4 diff (GNU diffutils) 2.8.1 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 3.1.6 /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3 GNU C Library (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2) stable release version 2.11.1 GNU grep 2.5.4 gzip 1.3.12 Linux version 2.6.32-23-generic (bui...@rothera) (gcc version 4.4.3 (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) ) #37-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 11 07:54:58 UTC 2010 GNU Make 3.81 Perl version='5.10.1'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.22 Texinfo: Compilation OK Additional note: Last night I reformatted the drive and restarted again (probably my fourth time), and this time I got to the step 5.8 sanity check and did receive the proper response. So I suspect that I was making a stupid mistake and that the warning I am receiving was not my problem. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
On 13/07/10 11:39, garth scott wrote: This is the out-put of version-check.sh bash, version 4.1.5(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/dash sudo ln -s bash /bin/sh Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.1-system.20100303 yacc not found sudo apt-get install yacc bison Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
On 13/07/10 13:18, Andrew Benton wrote: On 13/07/10 11:39, garth scott wrote: Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.1-system.20100303 yacc not found sudo apt-get install yacc bison Sorry, that should have read sudo apt-get install bison flex Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
On 13/07/10 13:18, Andrew Benton wrote: On 13/07/10 11:39, garth scott wrote: This is the out-put of version-check.sh bash, version 4.1.5(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/dash sudo ln -s bash /bin/sh Another thinko, I forgot the f. That should have read: sudo ln -sf bash /bin/sh Sorry for the list spam Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
I am still getting this warning: configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: see the Autoconf documentation configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: section Present But Cannot Be Compiled configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: in the future, the compiler will take This is output of my present version-check.sh bash, version 4.1.5(1)-release /bin/sh - /bin/bash Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.1-system.20100303 bison (GNU Bison) 2.4.1 /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/bison.yacc bzip2, Version 1.0.5, 10-Dec-2007. Coreutils: 7.4 diff (GNU diffutils) 2.8.1 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 3.1.6 /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3 GNU C Library (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2) stable release version 2.11.1 GNU grep 2.5.4 gzip 1.3.12 Linux version 2.6.32-23-generic (bui...@rothera) (gcc version 4.4.3 (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) ) #37-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 11 07:54:58 UTC 2010 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.13 GNU Make 3.81 patch 2.6 Perl version='5.10.1'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.22 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13 Compilation OK -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc-2.11.1 configure warning seems to be the problem but I cannot find the solutions
garth scott wrote: When I run configure for glibc-2.11.1 I get the following warning: configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: see the Autoconf documentation configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: section Present But Cannot Be Compiled configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: in the future, the compiler will take precedence I found someone who seemed to have the same problem but he did not post his solution here is the location of the thread: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2010-May/038565.html It is possible that he is explaining the solution but I do not understand what he did. My host system is Ubuntu 9.10 When I ran ./config.guess in step 5.2 my output was: i686-pc-linux-gnu What was the output of 'Host System Requirements' version-check.sh? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Make Error - Pass 1, Chapter 5.7, LFS Book 6.6
On 08/06/10 10:05, Rademaker, Pascal (Dealis) wrote: mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: regular expression compile failed (bad class -- [], [^] or [) /[^ mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: syntax error at or near ] mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: runaway regular expression /, , subd ... Read the preface http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.6/prologue/hostreqs.html You need to install gawk. Mawk can't compile glibc. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Make Error - Pass 1, Chapter 5.7, LFS Book 6.6
mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: regular expression compile failed (bad class -- [], [^] or [) /[^ mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: syntax error at or near ] mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: runaway regular expression /, , I've never used mawk, so I'm not familiar how similar it may be to gawk, but gawk is what the Host System Requirements specify. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: Everything you do communicates. (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc Make Error - Pass 1, Chapter 5.7, LFS Book 6.6
On Tuesday 08 June 2010 11:48:52 Paul Rogers wrote: mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: regular expression compile failed (bad class -- [], [^] or [) /[^ mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: syntax error at or near ] mawk: scripts/gen-sorted.awk: line 19: runaway regular expression /, , I've never used mawk, so I'm not familiar how similar it may be to gawk, but gawk is what the Host System Requirements specify. mawk isn't all that compatible with original AKW awk. Yes, I'm still using my 1988 edition of their AWK programming language book. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc build CH6.9 Awk: command not found
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Kyle Brennan wrote:
Hi again,
Big problem here, It appears that Gawk was improperly configured and now
when I try to configure my Glibc build, it runs into an error where it
cannot find the awk command.
Read section vii. Host System Requirements.
In Ch 6.9 isn't the awk needed the one in .../tools?
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc build CH6.9 Awk: command not found
Mike McCarty wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote: Kyle Brennan wrote: Hi again, Big problem here, It appears that Gawk was improperly configured and now when I try to configure my Glibc build, it runs into an error where it cannot find the awk command. Read section vii. Host System Requirements. In Ch 6.9 isn't the awk needed the one in .../tools? I missed that. We get so many posts that end up being because the Host Requirements aren't met that I thought this was another. Kyle, go back to 5.21. Gawk and reinstall. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc build CH6.9 Awk: command not found
ok. thanks how do i unchroot? or will restarting solve that? -- Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone -Original Message- From: Bruce Dubbs Sent: 5/25/2010 6:30:02 AM To: LFS Support List Subject: Re: Glibc build CH6.9 Awk: command not found Mike McCarty wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote: Kyle Brennan wrote: Hi again, Big problem here, It appears that Gawk was improperly configured and now when I try to configure my Glibc build, it runs into an error where it cannot find the awk command. Read section vii. Host System Requirements. In Ch 6.9 isn't the awk needed the one in .../tools? I missed that. We get so many posts that end up being because the Host Requirements aren't met that I thought this was another. Kyle, go back to 5.21. Gawk and reinstall. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc build CH6.9 Awk: command not found
Kyle Brennan wrote:
ok. thanks how do i unchroot? or will restarting solve that?
A reboot (if that's what you mean) will do the trick, certainly.
Alternatively, I think just doing another login outside the chroot
environment and doing the build will work. You can then resume
with the login which is in the chroot environment, likely.
OTOH, a reboot doesn't take much time. You will need to reenter
the chroot environment if you do that.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc make fails with Error 2
On 05/23/2010 09:57 PM, Chris Staub wrote: On 05/24/2010 12:45 AM, Kyle Brennan wrote: I solved the original error (it was a symlink problem with the gcc stem) and i got another error: mv -f /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/shlib.ldsT /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/shlib.lds i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc -shared -static-libgcc -Wl,-O1 -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-dynamic-linker=/tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 -B/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/csu/ -Wl,--version-script=/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc.map -Wl,-soname=libc.so.6 -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--hash-style=both -nostdlib -nostartfiles -e __libc_main -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/math -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/elf -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/dlfcn -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/nss -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/nis -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/rt -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/resolv -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/crypt -L/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/nptl -Wl,-rpath-link=/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/math:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/elf:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/dlfcn:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/nss:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/nis:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/rt:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/resolv:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/crypt:/mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/nptl -o /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc.so -T /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/shlib.lds /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/csu/abi-note.o /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/elf/soinit.os /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc_pic.os /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/elf/sofini.os /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/elf/interp.os /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/elf/ld.so -lgcc /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc_pic.os: In function `__libc_fork': /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-2.11.1/posix/../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/../fork.c:79: undefined reference to `__sync_bool_compare_and_swap_4' /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc_pic.os: In function `__nscd_drop_map_ref': /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-2.11.1/nscd/nscd-client.h:320: undefined reference to `__sync_fetch_and_add_4' /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc_pic.os: In function `nscd_getpw_r': /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-2.11.1/nscd/nscd_getpw_r.c:233: undefined reference to `__sync_fetch_and_add_4' /mnt/lfs/build/glibc-build/libc_pic.os: In function `__nscd_drop_map_ref': I looked at this output and I could not find anything aside from libc_pic.os seems to be throwing errors that i do not understand. Thanks, --Kyle These types of errors usually means you don't have CFLAGS set correctly, which points to some problem with configparms. Do cat configparms. It worked, and just a quick question, when you go for pass 2, 3, etc... do you start over with a clean build directory? ex: do you remove the binutils-build directory and then create a new one? for the binutils pass 2 build? thanks, Kyle -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc make fails with Error 2
Kyle Brennan wrote: These types of errors usually means you don't have CFLAGS set correctly, which points to some problem with configparms. Do cat configparms. It worked, and just a quick question, when you go for pass 2, 3, etc... do you start over with a clean build directory? ex: do you remove the binutils-build directory and then create a new one? for the binutils pass 2 build? Yes! Remove both the binutils-version directory and package-build (if any) directory and re-extract from the tarballs. Do that for every package. Go back and re-read Chapter 5.3, Important Note 1. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc build CH6.9 Awk: command not found
Kyle Brennan wrote: Hi again, Big problem here, It appears that Gawk was improperly configured and now when I try to configure my Glibc build, it runs into an error where it cannot find the awk command. Read section vii. Host System Requirements. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc make fails with Error 2
On 05/22/2010 04:11 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Kyle Brennan wrote: Hi, I am new here and I am attempting my first LFS build. I get to Glibc in chapter 5.7 and everything goes smoothly until i get to the make command. I run the command and it works for about fifteen minutes and it Gives me the following error: make: *** [all] Error 2 then it quits to the prompt. That's a little light on info. Give us the last 20-30 lines before the final error message. -- Bruce sorry about the late reply, my emails were being classified as spam. Here Is the console output: make[4]: Nothing to be done for `rtld-all'. make[4]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/string' make subdir=time -C ../time ..=../ objdir=/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build -f Makefile -f ../elf/rtld-Rules rtld-all rtld-modules='rtld-setitimer.os' make[4]: Entering directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/time' make[4]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/time' make[4]: Entering directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/time' make[4]: Nothing to be done for `rtld-all'. make[4]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/time' make[3]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/elf' make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/elf' make subdir=csu -C csu ..=../ others make[2]: Entering directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/csu' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `others'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/csu' make subdir=iconv -C iconv ..=../ others make[2]: Entering directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/iconv' i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc -nostdlib -nostartfiles -o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/iconvconfig -Wl,-dynamic-linker=/tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--hash-style=both /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/csu/crt1.o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/csu/crti.o `i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc --print-file-name=crtbegin.o` /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/iconvconfig.o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/strtab.o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/xmalloc.o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/hash-string.o -Wl,-rpath-link=/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/math:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/dlfcn:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nss:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nis:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/rt:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/resolv:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/crypt:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nptl /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/libc.so.6 /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/libc_nonshared.a -lgcc -lgcc_eh `i686-lfs-linux-gnu-gcc --print-file-name=crtend.o` /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/csu/crtn.o /mnt/lfs/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../i686-lfs-linux-gnu/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_eh collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/iconv/iconvconfig] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1/iconv' make[1]: *** [iconv/others] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.11.1' make: *** [all] Error 2 Thanks, Kyle -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
