Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 8:56 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: On 17/11/2013 11:26 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: Just so I understand. You got your kernel--3.10.10 (?)--to boot from the EFI partition? And without initrd or initramfs? The answer to this question is important to me. Yes. 3.10.10. Selectable in the BIOS efi boot manager and boots directly, fast. No initrd or initramfs is needed, I built all the drivers required for the server hardware into the kernel. If you build modules required for boot then you have to make them available in the EFI partition too. I found it easier to build everything into the kernel. Can you tell us exactly what you did to get to this? I mean very precisely, like if I wanted to tell my grandmother how to do it. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 6:10 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: If I can't make any head-way in the next few days, I'm going to install a minimal ArchLinux system and try the various GRUB options. I don't think they sign their kernels--see last paragraph--and that will test the GRUB stuff. About 3 weeks ago, as part of my attempt to learn about UEFI stuff, I successfully installed ArchLinux on another hard drive. I did a lot of reading about UEFI on their website. The installation used their gummiboot boot manager. @Alan Did you remove GRUB from your MBR Protected Layer or are you still using it? I never installed it. Following ArchLinux and the rodsbooks.com website, I've been trying to use the EFI Stub Loader along with Rod Smith's rEFInd boot manager, since he claims it's the most reliable method he's come across. Do you use an initrd or initramfs? I created the latter using the BLFS webpage About initramfs: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/initramfs.html Did you boot your kernel successfully before you started these EFI experiments? No. The LFS installation assumes you're using the standard MBR boot method, but I'm using what appears to be the latest methods: EFI, GPT and LVM. I'm trying to connect the dots. Does your failure message come from the kernel or from the LFS bootscripts? What does it say? The kernel. It dies with a message like ... kernel panic ... Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? I have to recycle the power. For background on my comments below: Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LK with latest BIOS update #1104 Intel i7-3770K 16G Corsair DDR3 2 Western Digital 2TB hard drives One drive has Fedora 19 installed on it. The other drive has all the LFS stuff on it. I had a setback today. Up through this morning, I was able to execute Launch EFI Shell from filesystem device, and to do various things in the EFI shell. But after making some changes to my hard drive arrangement several times in an attempt to get the system to boot up, this simply quit working. No matter what I name the EFI shell -- shellx64.efi and variations of that -- and no matter which hard drive I power up -- one or the other or both -- and no matter which SATA slot I plug the drive(s) into, the BIOS will not launch the EFI shell. This, even after I updated the BIOS again. So I've filed a technical request with ASUS Support to try to get some explanation, and hopefully documentation, on what's going on. I'm really frustrated because it's like the ASUS BIOS changes itself without input from me. The really weird thing about the ASUS board is that no matter which SATA slot I put the hard drives in, it always finds the Fedora Linux image, but never the LFS image. This tells me that the BIOS is doing some undocumented things. There is only one other option that's keeping me from booting in this environment. It's so distasteful that I don't even want to write it. But, at least in my firmware, it may be necessary for me to sign my kernel. That's not even for secure boot. I hope that's not true. What are the implications of that? Why is it so distasteful? Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 18/11/2013 1:28 AM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/16/2013 8:56 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: On 17/11/2013 11:26 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: Just so I understand. You got your kernel--3.10.10 (?)--to boot from the EFI partition? And without initrd or initramfs? The answer to this question is important to me. Yes. 3.10.10. Selectable in the BIOS efi boot manager and boots directly, fast. No initrd or initramfs is needed, I built all the drivers required for the server hardware into the kernel. If you build modules required for boot then you have to make them available in the EFI partition too. I found it easier to build everything into the kernel. Can you tell us exactly what you did to get to this? I mean very precisely, like if I wanted to tell my grandmother how to do it. Alan Not sure how good your Granny is with Linux OS's, but the instructions are fairly simple when you get rid of Grub. i. When you are building the otehr LFS packages, also include gdisk (for GPT drive partitioning), pciutils and efibootmgr ftp://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/pub/linux/pci/pciutils-3.2.0.tar.gz https://github.com/vathpela/efibootmgr/archive/master.zip ii. Configure your kernel to have the EFI settings enabled. I used the following with 3.10.10: CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y iii. Include the comand line parameters in the kernel. This is done during configuration: CONFIG_CMDLINE=root=/dev/sda3 ro --verbose iv. Using the details of your hardware, build the appropriate drivers into the kernel, or at least the drivers required for booting and mounting. This will depend on what you plan to use the OS for. v. Compile the kernel and install to /boot as normal. vi. Copy the kernel image to an efi image in the /boot/efi/EFI/linux/ directory: # cp /boot/vmlinuz-3.10.10 /boot/efi/EFI/linux/linux031010_x64.efi vii. Use efibootmgr to register it with the efi bios: # modprobe efivars # efibootmgr --create --disk /dev/sda --part 1 --write-signature --loader \\EFI\\linux\linux031010_x64.efi file:///%5C%5CEFI%5Clinux%5Clinux031010_x64.efi --label Linux Shut down, pull out the host drive and boot from your new OS drive. The bios should show your new OS as an option in the EFI boot menu. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/17/2013 04:10 PM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/16/2013 6:10 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: snipped your answers to my questions. Thank you. They helped. For background on my comments below: Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LK with latest BIOS update #1104 Intel i7-3770K 16G Corsair DDR3 2 Western Digital 2TB hard drives One drive has Fedora 19 installed on it. The other drive has all the LFS stuff on it. I had a setback today. Up through this morning, I was able to execute Launch EFI Shell from filesystem device, and to do various things in the EFI shell. But after making some changes to my hard drive arrangement several times in an attempt to get the system to boot up, this simply quit working. No matter what I name the EFI shell -- shellx64.efi and variations of that -- and no matter which hard drive I power up -- one or the other or both -- and no matter which SATA slot I plug the drive(s) into, the BIOS will not launch the EFI shell. This, even after I updated the BIOS again. So I've filed a technical request with ASUS Support to try to get some explanation, and hopefully documentation, on what's going on. I'm really frustrated because it's like the ASUS BIOS changes itself without input from me. The really weird thing about the ASUS board is that no matter which SATA slot I put the hard drives in, it always finds the Fedora Linux image, but never the LFS image. This tells me that the BIOS is doing some undocumented things. I had a similar experience but on only one hard drive. I would run an experiment and try to boot. The boot would fail and the System Boot Manager would remove my LFS entry and write one for Ubuntu. There was a time when, just trying to see what would happen, I had four entries for Ubuntu. I learned that there was at least one thing I needed to do: not use efivars but efivarfs. Once I did this, I could keep my LFS entries--although I still couldn't get LFS to boot. It's interesting that you're having a similar experience but with Fedora. That distro, along with Ubuntu and OpenSuse, have paid Microsoft and can use secure boot. Since the key and the signature reside in the firmware, I'm wondering if it isn't the firmware that's giving priority to Ubuntu in my case and Fedora in yours. Microsoft can black list any signature it wants at any time. These revisions are installed by means of Windows Update. Keys are OEM specific, and organizations like ASUS and HP incorporate them into their firmware. These OEM's can change their key configurations at any time. I'm guessing they do it through BIOS updates. Your story really interests me. There is only one other option that's keeping me from booting in this environment. It's so distasteful that I don't even want to write it. But, at least in my firmware, it may be necessary for me to sign my kernel. That's not even for secure boot. I hope that's not true. What are the implications of that? Why is it so distasteful? The introduction to the answer to your question is what I wrote above. At its worst, the situation could be, or become, that an individual must register a key with the OEM to install anything other than what came on the computer--or even use the firmware. What's worse is that an OEM could black list my key on my own computer. For what reason, I don't know, but it's an extension of the logic. I just don't like any person or organization telling me how to operate and what I can run on my own machines. I hope I don't sound like a conspiracy theorist. I'm not. But look at what has happened in the Windows World. We can't even get installation disks with our computers any more. That was a 3/4 rant. I apologize. One conclusion that emerges as a result of yours, mine and Geoff's experiences is that GRUB built from source may not be able to deal with the EFI environment in the way we're used to. I don't know how, or even if, the distros have modified GRUB in their packages. Everything I've read and all my experiements say that GRUB2 should work. Thus far, I haven't been successful--almost, but not quite. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 05:02:09PM -0600, Dan McGhee wrote: I don't know how, or even if, the distros have modified GRUB in their packages. I remember reading something that said fedora's grub is very different from upstream. Try using cgit to see what fedora are doing [ use a graphical browser ]. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 05:10:57PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/16/2013 6:10 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: The kernel. It dies with a message like ... kernel panic ... Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? I have to recycle the power. With your later comment about today's setback, this suggestion is irrelevant unless/until you can get back to this state. But if you manage to recover to there, please see if any indications of what is wrong get to the screen. If anything useful is there (i.e. not scrolled off), google it just in case someone has found a fix. If not, my first suggestion is to try newer kernels. This sounds very like the sort of thing that was discussed in the various lkml threads about EFI/UEFI I alluded to when replying to Dan in the past month (a change which fixes some machines breaks others). I suggest that you start by trying 3.12.0. No idea if anything there will fix it, but it is current. I normally don't recommend people try early -rc kernels, and 3.13-rc1 wasn't even released when I last checked. If you haven't had any success when 3.13-rc1 is released then certainly try it : but expect unrelated breakage in all sorts of weird and wonderful corner cases. So, if 3.12.0 doesn't work I would then try 3.10.0 in case a later fix broke something, and after that perhaps 3.8.0, 3.6.0, 3.4.0 (assuming your glibc --enable-kernel= isn't as aggressive as mine and will let your init run old kernels). IFF you can find something old which boots, you then get to work out what broke it. ĸen, glad to be a luddite using the bios and an MBR - at least until you guys have sorted out what needs to be done. -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/17/2013 06:03 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 05:10:57PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/16/2013 6:10 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: The kernel. It dies with a message like ... kernel panic ... Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? I have to recycle the power. With your later comment about today's setback, this suggestion is irrelevant unless/until you can get back to this state. But if you manage to recover to there, please see if any indications of what is wrong get to the screen. If anything useful is there (i.e. not scrolled off), google it just in case someone has found a fix. If not, my first suggestion is to try newer kernels. This sounds very like the sort of thing that was discussed in the various lkml threads about EFI/UEFI I alluded to when replying to Dan in the past month (a change which fixes some machines breaks others). I suggest that you start by trying 3.12.0. No idea if anything there will fix it, but it is current. I normally don't recommend people try early -rc kernels, and 3.13-rc1 wasn't even released when I last checked. If you haven't had any success when 3.13-rc1 is released then certainly try it : but expect unrelated breakage in all sorts of weird and wonderful corner cases. So, if 3.12.0 doesn't work I would then try 3.10.0 in case a later fix broke something, and after that perhaps 3.8.0, 3.6.0, 3.4.0 (assuming your glibc --enable-kernel= isn't as aggressive as mine and will let your init run old kernels). IFF you can find something old which boots, you then get to work out what broke it. ĸen, glad to be a luddite using the bios and an MBR - at least until you guys have sorted out what needs to be done. I don't know where in the boot sequence Alan was when he had a freeze. I know it happened to me early on and I had to do a hard reset. There were no messages from grub or kernel. Just a blank screen. When I figured out how to configure the grub build for efi and to use efivarfs, the system would still stop after I got the echo of Booting LFS-7.4.. But in those instances I could reboot with ALT-CTRL-DEL. That told me that I had successfully gotten in to the grub system, but that something was stopping me from going further. I googled, and googled and googled--in addition to offering the birth rights of my first-born-son--but I got no pertinent or useful results. Ken, you have something about using a newer kernel. I think it was in rodsbooks that I read something to the effect this fails on some kernels, then works on the next one. My efforts have led me back to grub or kernel 3.10.10 as the culprit. I used the configuration file for kernel 3.8.something from Ubuntu. I knew that config would produce a bootable kernel. But I got the same results. Geoff reports that he can boot without GRUB by using the efi-stub of 3.10.10. This tells me that 3.10.10 is one of those kernels in which it works. Soo, I'm back to looking at GRUB. I've got one more test to do before I copy my 3.10.10 to the EFI partition in an attempt to get the results Geoff got. With all the reading I've done at Arch-wiki, Gentoo-wiki, rodsbooks, Ubuntu I think I've discovered that this stuff is so new, no one really knows how it works or how to make it work reliably build to build or platform to platform. I find the lack of information at Linux Foundation, kernel.org and grub terribly interesting. It supports my newness conclusion. There even are no How do I fix this? posts at Linux Questions. Bottom line. I'm still trying. But it looks like, as far as efi is concerned, kernel efi-stubs and efibootmgr are the way to go. With this there is no need for grub. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On Nov 17, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: I remember reading something that said fedora's grub is very different from upstream. Try using cgit to see what fedora are doing [ use a graphical browser ]. ĸen http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/grub2.git/plain/ I found this a while back while helping someone with a jfs problem and grub while accessing relocator module and all. Sincerely, William Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
Hi, After getting the stock LFS system installed, with an MBR type boot installation, I'm experimenting with installing to a UEFI type boot location on a brand new hard drive. I've been reading a lot of online documentation, and have tried a first-cut installation, but am not having success in installing. While I can install the entire set of LFS programs, and a lot of BLFS programs, when I try to boot up, Linux fires up but quickly generates a fatal error. Is there any possibility of advice from the LFS staff? Please note that my goal here is not just to get an LFS system going, but to learn as much as I can about this kind of Linux installation. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: Hi, After getting the stock LFS system installed, with an MBR type boot installation, I'm experimenting with installing to a UEFI type boot location on a brand new hard drive. I've been reading a lot of online documentation, and have tried a first-cut installation, but am not having success in installing. While I can install the entire set of LFS programs, and a lot of BLFS programs, when I try to boot up, Linux fires up but quickly generates a fatal error. Is there any possibility of advice from the LFS staff? http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/ See the posts from Dan McGhee - most recently on 13th November, but starting on 28th October. Four threads, titles mentioning GRUB or EFI. At the moment they are all on the first page at that link, at least in firefox. Our best advice / guesses is in those threads. Dan hasn't cracked it yet, but your hardware might be different. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 17/11/2013 10:10 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: On 11/16/2013 03:40 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: Hi, After getting the stock LFS system installed, with an MBR type boot installation, I'm experimenting with installing to a UEFI type boot location on a brand new hard drive. I've been reading a lot of online documentation, and have tried a first-cut installation, but am not having success in installing. While I can install the entire set of LFS programs, and a lot of BLFS programs, when I try to boot up, Linux fires up but quickly generates a fatal error. Is there any possibility of advice from the LFS staff? http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/ See the posts from Dan McGhee - most recently on 13th November, but starting on 28th October. Four threads, titles mentioning GRUB or EFI. At the moment they are all on the first page at that link, at least in firefox. Our best advice / guesses is in those threads. Dan hasn't cracked it yet, but your hardware might be different. ĸen I thought I was going to be able to report success this afternoon, but as yet no joy. My efforts so far have resulted in the following conclusions: 1. There is something wrong in my grub set-up. 2. My kernel is not bootable. 3. I have missed something in the EFI info. At this point, all I want is some indication that my kernel is booting. As long as I get only one message from the kernel and the system freezes I can conclude that all else is fine except my kernel. I'm writing this e-mail on the fly and don't have my EFI sources at hand. I read last night that from the EFI partition the bootloader--in this case GRUB--doesn't know where the file system is even though it can read the partition table. Therefore, and initramfs is called for. I know nothing about these. I've read what the BLFS book has and have tried it with no success. At this point, I don't know enough to solve any gotcha's that the initramfs hint gives. Gonna try dracut. If I can't make any head-way in the next few days, I'm going to install a minimal ArchLinux system and try the various GRUB options. I don't think they sign their kernels--see last paragraph--and that will test the GRUB stuff. I cannot verify this in any documentation. It's just a hunch I have. When it comes to booting using an EFI partition, we must ignore everything we've learned about booting and using GRUB. It may be that using GRUB in a multiboot environment we cannot use the linux /boot/vmliz* root=/dev/xxx ro to get to another distro. We may have to use grub's chainloader to do that. I say this because, I have not been able to get Ubuntu to boot from my LFS-7.4 system in the old way. I was successful using the chainloader. If all this is true, then the easiest way to accomplish this is to use 'efibootmgr' or 'gummiboot' and boot everything thing we have from the EFI partition. My goal is to be able to be able to answer these questions when my testing is over. @Alan Did you remove GRUB from your MBR Protected Layer or are you still using it? Do you use an initrd or initramfs? Did you boot your kernel successfully before you started these EFI experiments? Does your failure message come from the kernel or from the LFS bootscripts? What does it say? Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? There is only one other option that's keeping me from booting in this environment. It's so distasteful that I don't even want to write it. But, at least in my firmware, it may be necessary for me to sign my kernel. That's not even for secure boot. I hope that's not true. Dan Dan, I could not get EFI and Grub2 to co-operate so I went for the Linux EFI image route instead and eliminated the boot manager. It is not really necessary unless you want to select from different kernels on the system. The kernel must be compiled with the EFI settings: CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y and also the kernel parameters built-in: CONFIG_CMDLINE=root=/dev/sda3 ro --verbose then use efibootmgr to register the new kernel image with the BIOS, so it can be selected at boot time. Geoff -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 05:44 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: On 17/11/2013 10:10 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: On 11/16/2013 03:40 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: Hi, After getting the stock LFS system installed, with an MBR type boot installation, I'm experimenting with installing to a UEFI type boot location on a brand new hard drive. I've been reading a lot of online documentation, and have tried a first-cut installation, but am not having success in installing. While I can install the entire set of LFS programs, and a lot of BLFS programs, when I try to boot up, Linux fires up but quickly generates a fatal error. Is there any possibility of advice from the LFS staff? http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/ See the posts from Dan McGhee - most recently on 13th November, but starting on 28th October. Four threads, titles mentioning GRUB or EFI. At the moment they are all on the first page at that link, at least in firefox. Our best advice / guesses is in those threads. Dan hasn't cracked it yet, but your hardware might be different. ?en I thought I was going to be able to report success this afternoon, but as yet no joy. My efforts so far have resulted in the following conclusions: 1. There is something wrong in my grub set-up. 2. My kernel is not bootable. 3. I have missed something in the EFI info. At this point, all I want is some indication that my kernel is booting. As long as I get only one message from the kernel and the system freezes I can conclude that all else is fine except my kernel. I'm writing this e-mail on the fly and don't have my EFI sources at hand. I read last night that from the EFI partition the bootloader--in this case GRUB--doesn't know where the file system is even though it can read the partition table. Therefore, and initramfs is called for. I know nothing about these. I've read what the BLFS book has and have tried it with no success. At this point, I don't know enough to solve any gotcha's that the initramfs hint gives. Gonna try dracut. If I can't make any head-way in the next few days, I'm going to install a minimal ArchLinux system and try the various GRUB options. I don't think they sign their kernels--see last paragraph--and that will test the GRUB stuff. I cannot verify this in any documentation. It's just a hunch I have. When it comes to booting using an EFI partition, we must ignore everything we've learned about booting and using GRUB. It may be that using GRUB in a multiboot environment we cannot use the linux /boot/vmliz* root=/dev/xxx ro to get to another distro. We may have to use grub's chainloader to do that. I say this because, I have not been able to get Ubuntu to boot from my LFS-7.4 system in the old way. I was successful using the chainloader. If all this is true, then the easiest way to accomplish this is to use 'efibootmgr' or 'gummiboot' and boot everything thing we have from the EFI partition. My goal is to be able to be able to answer these questions when my testing is over. @Alan Did you remove GRUB from your MBR Protected Layer or are you still using it? Do you use an initrd or initramfs? Did you boot your kernel successfully before you started these EFI experiments? Does your failure message come from the kernel or from the LFS bootscripts? What does it say? Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? There is only one other option that's keeping me from booting in this environment. It's so distasteful that I don't even want to write it. But, at least in my firmware, it may be necessary for me to sign my kernel. That's not even for secure boot. I hope that's not true. Dan Dan, I could not get EFI and Grub2 to co-operate so I went for the Linux EFI image route instead and eliminated the boot manager. It is not really necessary unless you want to select from different kernels on the system. The kernel must be compiled with the EFI settings: CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y and also the kernel parameters built-in: CONFIG_CMDLINE=root=/dev/sda3 ro --verbose then use efibootmgr to register the new kernel image with the BIOS, so it can be selected at boot time. Geoff Geoff, your comments are giving me a break from answering questions in make oldconfig :) Just so I understand. You got your kernel--3.10.10 (?)--to boot from the EFI partition? And without initrd or initramfs? The answer to this question is important to me. As I said before, I don't have my references close right now, but you may want to consider reconfiguring your kernel with CONFIG_EFI_VARS=n and enabling evifarfs. efivars is going away. I'll check my references and post later with the appropriate one. I have been using efivarfs mounted at /sys/firmware/efi/efivars with great success. Otherwise, I have been
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 05:44 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: On 17/11/2013 10:10 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: On 11/16/2013 03:40 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: Hi, After getting the stock LFS system installed, with an MBR type boot installation, I'm experimenting with installing to a UEFI type boot location on a brand new hard drive. I've been reading a lot of online documentation, and have tried a first-cut installation, but am not having success in installing. While I can install the entire set of LFS programs, and a lot of BLFS programs, when I try to boot up, Linux fires up but quickly generates a fatal error. Is there any possibility of advice from the LFS staff? http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/ See the posts from Dan McGhee - most recently on 13th November, but starting on 28th October. Four threads, titles mentioning GRUB or EFI. At the moment they are all on the first page at that link, at least in firefox. Our best advice / guesses is in those threads. Dan hasn't cracked it yet, but your hardware might be different. ?en I thought I was going to be able to report success this afternoon, but as yet no joy. My efforts so far have resulted in the following conclusions: 1. There is something wrong in my grub set-up. 2. My kernel is not bootable. 3. I have missed something in the EFI info. At this point, all I want is some indication that my kernel is booting. As long as I get only one message from the kernel and the system freezes I can conclude that all else is fine except my kernel. I'm writing this e-mail on the fly and don't have my EFI sources at hand. I read last night that from the EFI partition the bootloader--in this case GRUB--doesn't know where the file system is even though it can read the partition table. Therefore, and initramfs is called for. I know nothing about these. I've read what the BLFS book has and have tried it with no success. At this point, I don't know enough to solve any gotcha's that the initramfs hint gives. Gonna try dracut. If I can't make any head-way in the next few days, I'm going to install a minimal ArchLinux system and try the various GRUB options. I don't think they sign their kernels--see last paragraph--and that will test the GRUB stuff. I cannot verify this in any documentation. It's just a hunch I have. When it comes to booting using an EFI partition, we must ignore everything we've learned about booting and using GRUB. It may be that using GRUB in a multiboot environment we cannot use the linux /boot/vmliz* root=/dev/xxx ro to get to another distro. We may have to use grub's chainloader to do that. I say this because, I have not been able to get Ubuntu to boot from my LFS-7.4 system in the old way. I was successful using the chainloader. If all this is true, then the easiest way to accomplish this is to use 'efibootmgr' or 'gummiboot' and boot everything thing we have from the EFI partition. My goal is to be able to be able to answer these questions when my testing is over. @Alan Did you remove GRUB from your MBR Protected Layer or are you still using it? Do you use an initrd or initramfs? Did you boot your kernel successfully before you started these EFI experiments? Does your failure message come from the kernel or from the LFS bootscripts? What does it say? Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? There is only one other option that's keeping me from booting in this environment. It's so distasteful that I don't even want to write it. But, at least in my firmware, it may be necessary for me to sign my kernel. That's not even for secure boot. I hope that's not true. Dan Dan, I could not get EFI and Grub2 to co-operate so I went for the Linux EFI image route instead and eliminated the boot manager. It is not really necessary unless you want to select from different kernels on the system. The kernel must be compiled with the EFI settings: CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y and also the kernel parameters built-in: CONFIG_CMDLINE=root=/dev/sda3 ro --verbose then use efibootmgr to register the new kernel image with the BIOS, so it can be selected at boot time. Geoff I think efivarfs is new in 3.10.10 CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS=(y or m) is what I recommend if you're using 3.10.10 Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 7:36 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: I think efivarfs is new in 3.10.10 CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS=(y or m) is what I recommend if you're using 3.10.10 The information I've gotten so far about setting these CONFIG variables, from Arch Linux, rodsbooks.com and other places, is summarized here, from my incomplete notes from the last several weeks: *** # For UEFI booting, according to ArchLinux you also need to ensure that the following # https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface # kernel configuration options are set: ## CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y # UEFI Runtime Variables Support (efivarfs filesystem - /sys/firmware/efi/efivars). This option is important as this is required to manipulate UEFI Runtime Variables using tools like /usr/bin/efibootmgr. The below config option has been added in kernel 3.10 and above. CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS=y # UEFI Runtime Variables Support (old efivars sysfs interface - /sys/firmware/efi/vars). This option should be disabled. CONFIG_EFI_VARS=n # GUID Partition Table GPT config option - mandatory for UEFI support CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y # Note: All of the above options are required to boot Linux via UEFI, and are enabled in Archlinux kernels in official repos. ## # # ALSO need to set this: ## CONFIG_CMDLINE_BOOL=y CONFIG_CMDLINE= ## # See # and in make menuconfig set these with Processor Type and Features - Built-in kernel command line # # Also, in installing Cups-1.6.3 the BLFS book states: # # Kernel Configuration # Note # # There is a conflict between the Cups libusb backend and the usblp kernel driver. If you want to use Cups with libusb, do not enable USB Printer support in your kernel. # # If you want to use the kernel usblp driver, enable the following options in your kernel configuration and recompile the kernel: # # If you want to use the kernel usblp driver, enable the following options in your kernel configuration and recompile the kernel: # # Device Drivers --- # [*] USB support --- # .. # In make menuconfig, get rid of the * in USB support *** Since I have not yet been successful in booting Linux 3.10.10 with UEFI, I can't comment on the above. For what it's worth. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 06:51 PM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/16/2013 7:36 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: I think efivarfs is new in 3.10.10 CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS=(y or m) is what I recommend if you're using 3.10.10 The information I've gotten so far about setting these CONFIG variables, from Arch Linux, rodsbooks.com and other places, is summarized here, from my incomplete notes from the last several weeks: *** # For UEFI booting, according to ArchLinux you also need to ensure that the following # https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface # kernel configuration options are set: ## CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y # UEFI Runtime Variables Support (efivarfs filesystem - /sys/firmware/efi/efivars). This option is important as this is required to manipulate UEFI Runtime Variables using tools like /usr/bin/efibootmgr. The below config option has been added in kernel 3.10 and above. CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS=y # UEFI Runtime Variables Support (old efivars sysfs interface - /sys/firmware/efi/vars). This option should be disabled. CONFIG_EFI_VARS=n # GUID Partition Table GPT config option - mandatory for UEFI support CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y # Note: All of the above options are required to boot Linux via UEFI, and are enabled in Archlinux kernels in official repos. ## # # ALSO need to set this: ## CONFIG_CMDLINE_BOOL=y CONFIG_CMDLINE= ## # See # and in make menuconfig set these with Processor Type and Features - Built-in kernel command line # # Also, in installing Cups-1.6.3 the BLFS book states: # # Kernel Configuration # Note # # There is a conflict between the Cups libusb backend and the usblp kernel driver. If you want to use Cups with libusb, do not enable USB Printer support in your kernel. # # If you want to use the kernel usblp driver, enable the following options in your kernel configuration and recompile the kernel: # # If you want to use the kernel usblp driver, enable the following options in your kernel configuration and recompile the kernel: # # Device Drivers --- # [*] USB support --- # .. # In make menuconfig, get rid of the * in USB support *** Since I have not yet been successful in booting Linux 3.10.10 with UEFI, I can't comment on the above. For what it's worth. Alan Alan, thank you for validating my research. Let me validate yours. Those recommendations work. Did you see the questions I asked you earlier? I hope you will answer them. They are important to my research. I'm so close to success, I can smell it. Hopefully it won't be long and I can post everything here. It will be quite long. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 8:17 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: Alan, thank you for validating my research. Let me validate yours. Those recommendations work. Good! Did you see the questions I asked you earlier? I hope you will answer them. They are important to my research. Yeah, I saw them. I'm in the process of answering them, but I have to revisit a lot of stuff first, so it will take awhile. I'm so close to success, I can smell it. Hopefully it won't be long and I can post everything here. It will be quite long. We can compare notes. I've got a LOT of stuff as well. And a lot of holes left to fill. Alan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 07:26 PM, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: On 11/16/2013 8:17 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: Alan, thank you for validating my research. Let me validate yours. Those recommendations work. Good! Did you see the questions I asked you earlier? I hope you will answer them. They are important to my research. Yeah, I saw them. I'm in the process of answering them, but I have to revisit a lot of stuff first, so it will take awhile. No rush. I'm so close to success, I can smell it. Hopefully it won't be long and I can post everything here. It will be quite long. We can compare notes. I've got a LOT of stuff as well. And a lot of holes left to fill. I have holes too. I'm looking forward to the exchange of info. Earlier on this list Geoff Swan posted. I want to verify from him that he got kernel 3.10.10 to boot from using the system Boot Manager. I'm trying to verify the need for an initrd or initramfs. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 17/11/2013 11:26 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: On 11/16/2013 05:44 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: On 17/11/2013 10:10 AM, Dan McGhee wrote: On 11/16/2013 03:40 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Alan Feuerbacher wrote: Hi, After getting the stock LFS system installed, with an MBR type boot installation, I'm experimenting with installing to a UEFI type boot location on a brand new hard drive. I've been reading a lot of online documentation, and have tried a first-cut installation, but am not having success in installing. While I can install the entire set of LFS programs, and a lot of BLFS programs, when I try to boot up, Linux fires up but quickly generates a fatal error. Is there any possibility of advice from the LFS staff? http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/ See the posts from Dan McGhee - most recently on 13th November, but starting on 28th October. Four threads, titles mentioning GRUB or EFI. At the moment they are all on the first page at that link, at least in firefox. Our best advice / guesses is in those threads. Dan hasn't cracked it yet, but your hardware might be different. ?en I thought I was going to be able to report success this afternoon, but as yet no joy. My efforts so far have resulted in the following conclusions: 1. There is something wrong in my grub set-up. 2. My kernel is not bootable. 3. I have missed something in the EFI info. At this point, all I want is some indication that my kernel is booting. As long as I get only one message from the kernel and the system freezes I can conclude that all else is fine except my kernel. I'm writing this e-mail on the fly and don't have my EFI sources at hand. I read last night that from the EFI partition the bootloader--in this case GRUB--doesn't know where the file system is even though it can read the partition table. Therefore, and initramfs is called for. I know nothing about these. I've read what the BLFS book has and have tried it with no success. At this point, I don't know enough to solve any gotcha's that the initramfs hint gives. Gonna try dracut. If I can't make any head-way in the next few days, I'm going to install a minimal ArchLinux system and try the various GRUB options. I don't think they sign their kernels--see last paragraph--and that will test the GRUB stuff. I cannot verify this in any documentation. It's just a hunch I have. When it comes to booting using an EFI partition, we must ignore everything we've learned about booting and using GRUB. It may be that using GRUB in a multiboot environment we cannot use the linux /boot/vmliz* root=/dev/xxx ro to get to another distro. We may have to use grub's chainloader to do that. I say this because, I have not been able to get Ubuntu to boot from my LFS-7.4 system in the old way. I was successful using the chainloader. If all this is true, then the easiest way to accomplish this is to use 'efibootmgr' or 'gummiboot' and boot everything thing we have from the EFI partition. My goal is to be able to be able to answer these questions when my testing is over. @Alan Did you remove GRUB from your MBR Protected Layer or are you still using it? Do you use an initrd or initramfs? Did you boot your kernel successfully before you started these EFI experiments? Does your failure message come from the kernel or from the LFS bootscripts? What does it say? Must you do a hard reset to start over or can you use ALT-CTRL-DEL? There is only one other option that's keeping me from booting in this environment. It's so distasteful that I don't even want to write it. But, at least in my firmware, it may be necessary for me to sign my kernel. That's not even for secure boot. I hope that's not true. Dan Dan, I could not get EFI and Grub2 to co-operate so I went for the Linux EFI image route instead and eliminated the boot manager. It is not really necessary unless you want to select from different kernels on the system. The kernel must be compiled with the EFI settings: CONFIG_EFI=y CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y CONFIG_FB_EFI=y CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y and also the kernel parameters built-in: CONFIG_CMDLINE=root=/dev/sda3 ro --verbose then use efibootmgr to register the new kernel image with the BIOS, so it can be selected at boot time. Geoff Geoff, your comments are giving me a break from answering questions in make oldconfig :) Just so I understand. You got your kernel--3.10.10 (?)--to boot from the EFI partition? And without initrd or initramfs? The answer to this question is important to me. Yes. 3.10.10. Selectable in the BIOS efi boot manager and boots directly, fast. No initrd or initramfs is needed, I built all the drivers required for the server hardware into the kernel. If you build modules required for
Re: [lfs-support] Help with Installing to UEFI Motherboard
On 11/16/2013 07:56 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: Just so I understand. You got your kernel--3.10.10 (?)--to boot from the EFI partition? And without initrd or initramfs? The answer to this question is important to me. Yes. 3.10.10. Selectable in the BIOS efi boot manager and boots directly, fast. No initrd or initramfs is needed, I built all the drivers required for the server hardware into the kernel. If you build modules required for boot then you have to make them available in the EFI partition too. I found it easier to build everything into the kernel. Available in a directory on the EFI partition? This might be why many, many people use initramfs. Thanks for the info, Geoff. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
I tryed now: delete all from /tools, all unpacked sources, begin at first with compile of binutils. That suceeded. Then, I continued the process with compile of gcc. Sorry, nothing change, it give me the error message written above. Today afternoon I should install the unlike ubuntu (exact/distinctly lubuntu) and try it again... 2013/10/24 Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr Le 23/10/2013 23:49, Viola Zoltán a écrit : @akhiezer: I tryed: CFLAGS=-O2 -g make but no changed: Hi Viola, What I told about the LFS_TGT variable is important. I've seen that you have changed it in your 'printenv' output, but have you recompiled binutils with this new setting? If not, you are in a mixed native-croscompile setting, which cannot be expected to work... For the host distro I use, it is debian 7.0. I've also tried recent Arch, various Ubuntu's, Fedora's, and Suse's, all of them allowed to build LFS. Regards Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Le 22/10/2013 23:31, Viola Zoltán a écrit : lfs@Csiszilla ~ $ cat .bashrc set +h umask 022 LFS=/Mount/Simplicity LC_ALL=POSIX LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-pc-linux-gnu Should be : |LFS_TGT=$(uname -m)-lfs-linux-gnu See section 4.4 and 5.2 for why. | PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL LFS_TGT PATH alias mc='. /usr/libexec/mc/mc-wrapper.sh' The last line is not from the book. I do not think it is related to the described failure, though, but who knows? If you are really a newbie, try to follow exactly the book. Regards Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:41:24 -0400
From: Viola Zoltán violaz...@gmail.com
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Excuse me, I am very newbie and very idiotic... I tryed it:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti; make
CFLAGS=--fno-exceptions --fno-rtti; make
but nothing changed, the compile not succeeded, same error message...
- shouldn't that be:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make
- i.e. without the semi-colon (';') ; and normally just use the single-dash
('-')
format for those options (i.e. '-f...' instead of '--f...') .
(Also, fwiw, for a make command-line I'd normally put such variables _after_
the
'make': make [ -f makefile ] [ options ] ... [ targets ] ... ).
hth
akh
p.s. also try to avoid top-posting.
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:01:40 +0100
From: (akhiezer)
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:41:24 -0400
From: Viola Zoltán violaz...@gmail.com
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Excuse me, I am very newbie and very idiotic... I tryed it:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti; make
CFLAGS=--fno-exceptions --fno-rtti; make
but nothing changed, the compile not succeeded, same error message...
- shouldn't that be:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make
- i.e. without the semi-colon (';') ; and normally just use the single-dash
('-')
format for those options (i.e. '-f...' instead of '--f...') .
(Also, fwiw, for a make command-line I'd normally put such variables _after_
the
'make': make [ -f makefile ] [ options ] ... [ targets ] ... ).
hth
akh
p.s. also try to avoid top-posting.
- although, as Ken says, he's asking you to retry the make with the
'-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti' options omitted - iff certain conditions are met -
per details of Ken's 2+ messages (the stuff re '-O2 -g', etc).
akh
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Sorry, nothing change. I was deleted all GCC source, begin from first the
5.5 chapter (compiling of GCC), with this command (after the configure):
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make
but it write me this error message:
/bin/sh ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../move-if-change tmp-latencytab.c
insn-latencytab.c
echo timestamp s-attrtab
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/.
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libcpp/include
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/./gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.8.1/mpfr/src
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/mpc/src
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libbacktraceinsn-attrtab.c -o insn-attrtab.o
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -I. -Ibuild -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/build -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libcpp/include
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/./gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.8.1/mpfr/src
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/mpc/src
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libbacktrace\
-o build/genautomata.o ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/genautomata.c
g++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc -o
build/genautomata \
build/genautomata.o build/rtl.o build/read-rtl.o build/ggc-none.o
build/vec.o build/min-insn-modes.o build/gensupport.o build/print-rtl.o
build/read-md.o build/errors.o
../build-i686-pc-linux-gnu/libiberty/libiberty.a -lm
build/genautomata ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md \
insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c
/bin/sh: line 1: 12525 Bus error build/genautomata
../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c
make[2]: *** [s-automata] Error 135
make[2]: Leaving directory `/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/gcc'
make[1]: *** [all-gcc] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build'
make: *** [all] Error 2
2013/10/23 akhiezer lf...@cruziero.com
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:01:40 +0100
From: (akhiezer)
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5.
GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:41:24 -0400
From: Viola Zoltán violaz...@gmail.com
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5.
GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Excuse me, I am very newbie and very idiotic... I tryed it:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti; make
CFLAGS=--fno-exceptions --fno-rtti; make
but nothing changed, the compile not succeeded, same error message...
- shouldn't that be:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make
- i.e. without the semi-colon (';') ; and normally just use the
single-dash ('-')
format for those options (i.e. '-f...' instead of '--f...') .
(Also, fwiw, for a make command-line I'd normally put such variables
_after_ the
'make': make [ -f makefile ] [ options ] ... [ targets ] ... ).
hth
akh
p.s. also try to avoid top-posting.
- although, as Ken says, he's asking you to retry the make with the
'-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti' options omitted - iff certain conditions are
met -
per details of Ken's 2+ messages (the stuff re '-O2 -g', etc).
akh
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
The full printenv output: TERM=xterm OLDPWD=/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build LC_ALL=POSIX LS_COLORS=rs=0:di=01;34:ln=01;36:mh=00:pi=40;33:so=01;35:do=01;35:bd=40;33;01:cd=40;33;01:or=01;05;37;41:mi=01;05;37;41:su=37;41:sg=30;43:ca=30;41:tw=30;42:ow=34;42:st=37;44:ex=01;32:*.tar=01;31:*.tgz=01;31:*.arj=01;31:*.taz=01;31:*.lzh=01;31:*.lzma=01;31:*.tlz=01;31:*.txz=01;31:*.zip=01;31:*.z=01;31:*.Z=01;31:*.dz=01;31:*.gz=01;31:*.lz=01;31:*.xz=01;31:*.bz2=01;31:*.bz=01;31:*.tbz=01;31:*.tbz2=01;31:*.tz=01;31:*.deb=01;31:*.rpm=01;31:*.jar=01;31:*.war=01;31:*.ear=01;31:*.sar=01;31:*.rar=01;31:*.ace=01;31:*.zoo=01;31:*.cpio=01;31:*.7z=01;31:*.rz=01;31:*.jpg=01;35:*.jpeg=01;35:*.gif=01;35:*.bmp=01;35:*.pbm=01;35:*.pgm=01;35:*.ppm=01;35:*.tga=01;35:*.xbm=01;35:*.xpm=01;35:*.tif=01;35:*.tiff=01;35:*.png=01;35:*.svg=01;35:*.svgz=01;35:*.mng=01;35:*.pcx=01;35:*.mov=01;35:*.mpg=01;35:*.mpeg=01;35:*.m2v=01;35:*.mkv=01;35:*.webm=01;35:*.ogm=01;35:*.mp4=01;35:*.m4v=01;35:*.mp4v=01;35:*.vob=01;35:*.qt=01;35:*.nuv=01;35:*.wmv=01;35:*.asf=01;35:*.rm=01;35:*.rmvb=01;35:*.flc=01;35:*.avi=01;35:*.fli=01;35:*.flv=01;35:*.gl=01;35:*.dl=01;35:*.xcf=01;35:*.xwd=01;35:*.yuv=01;35:*.cgm=01;35:*.emf=01;35:*.axv=01;35:*.anx=01;35:*.ogv=01;35:*.ogx=01;35:*.pdf=00;32:*.ps=00;32:*.txt=00;32:*.patch=00;32:*.diff=00;32:*.log=00;32:*.tex=00;32:*.doc=00;32:*.aac=00;36:*.au=00;36:*.flac=00;36:*.mid=00;36:*.midi=00;36:*.mka=00;36:*.mp3=00;36:*.mpc=00;36:*.ogg=00;36:*.ra=00;36:*.wav=00;36:*.axa=00;36:*.oga=00;36:*.spx=00;36:*.xspf=00;36: LFS=/Mount/Simplicity PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin PWD=/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build LFS_TGT=i686-lfs-linux-gnu PS1=\[\033[01;32m\]\u@\h\[\033[01;34m\] \w \$\[\033[00m\] SHLVL=1 HOME=/home/lfs _=/usr/bin/printenv 2013/10/23 akhiezer lf...@cruziero.com From lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Wed Oct 23 21:34:56 2013 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:16:23 -0400 From: Viola Zoltán violaz...@gmail.com To: akhiezer lf...@cruziero.com, LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1 Sorry, nothing change. I was deleted all GCC source, begin from first the 5.5 chapter (compiling of GCC), with this command (after the configure): CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make but it write me this error message: /bin/sh ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../move-if-change tmp-latencytab.c insn-latencytab.c echo timestamp s-attrtab g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/. -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/./gmp -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/gmp -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.8.1/mpfr/src -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/mpc/src -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libbacktraceinsn-attrtab.c -o insn-attrtab.o g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -I. -Ibuild -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/build -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/./gmp -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/gmp -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.8.1/mpfr/src -I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/mpc/src -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libbacktrace\ -o build/genautomata.o ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/genautomata.c g++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc -o build/genautomata \ build/genautomata.o build/rtl.o build/read-rtl.o build/ggc-none.o build/vec.o build/min-insn-modes.o build/gensupport.o build/print-rtl.o build/read-md.o build/errors.o ../build-i686-pc-linux-gnu/libiberty/libiberty.a -lm build/genautomata ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md \ insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c /bin/sh: line 1: 12525 Bus error build/genautomata ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c make[2]: *** [s-automata] Error 135
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
To: akhiezer lf...@cruziero.com,
LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5.
GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Sorry, nothing change. I was deleted all GCC source, begin from first
the
5.5 chapter (compiling of GCC), with this command (after the configure):
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make
but it write me this error message:
/bin/sh ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../move-if-change tmp-latencytab.c
insn-latencytab.c
echo timestamp s-attrtab
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/.
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libcpp/include
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/./gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.8.1/mpfr/src
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/mpc/src
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libbacktraceinsn-attrtab.c -o
insn-attrtab.o
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -I. -Ibuild -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/build -I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../include
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libcpp/include
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/./gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/gmp
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.8.1/mpfr/src
-I/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-4.8.1/mpc/src
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber
-I../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/../libbacktrace\
-o build/genautomata.o ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/genautomata.c
g++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic
-Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc -o
build/genautomata \
build/genautomata.o build/rtl.o build/read-rtl.o build/ggc-none.o
build/vec.o build/min-insn-modes.o build/gensupport.o build/print-rtl.o
build/read-md.o build/errors.o
../build-i686-pc-linux-gnu/libiberty/libiberty.a -lm
build/genautomata ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md \
insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c
/bin/sh: line 1: 12525 Bus error build/genautomata
../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md
tmp-automata.c
make[2]: *** [s-automata] Error 135
make[2]: Leaving directory `/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build/gcc'
make[1]: *** [all-gcc] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build'
make: *** [all] Error 2
2013/10/23 akhiezer lf...@cruziero.com
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:01:40 +0100
From: (akhiezer)
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5.
GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:41:24 -0400
From: Viola Zoltán violaz...@gmail.com
To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5.
GCC-4.8.1 -
Pass 1
Excuse me, I am very newbie and very idiotic... I tryed it:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti; make
CFLAGS=--fno-exceptions --fno-rtti; make
but nothing changed, the compile not succeeded, same error
message...
- shouldn't that be:
CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti make
- i.e. without the semi-colon (';') ; and normally just use the
single-dash ('-')
format for those options (i.e. '-f...' instead of '--f...') .
(Also, fwiw, for a make command-line I'd normally put such variables
_after_ the
'make': make [ -f makefile ] [ options ] ... [ targets ] ... ).
hth
akh
p.s. also try to avoid top-posting.
- although, as Ken says, he's asking you to retry the make with the
'-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti' options omitted - iff certain conditions
are
met -
per details of Ken's 2+ messages (the stuff re '-O2 -g', etc).
akh
Sorry to howevermuch-inadvertently partway-hijack a thread, but given
time-differences c, here goes:
Can you give the output of 'printenv' .
Can you go 'round the loop again - i.e. fresh tarball-unpack, etc - and
do:
CFLAGS=-O2 -g make
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: @akhiezer: I tryed: CFLAGS=-O2 -g make but no changed: My final suggestion is : try a different host distro. The recent google matches for this were almost all for people updating packages on gentoo, which is why I suspect gentoo's hardening. There was one similar error for someone doing something on fedora, but at the moment I regard that as an outlier (it had no responses and apparently remains unresolved). One of the gentoo threads suggested that these errors could come from memory problems (test with memtest86), but I suspect there must also be something in the hardening which has an influence, because you are not getting a segfault. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Dear Ken, I am sure that this is no memory problem. I have absolutely full totally new memory chipset in my laptop, and all programs work very good, both in my Sabayon (because I use not Gentoo, but Sabayon) and my old Ubuntu 11.10 distro in an other partition. Okay, I try the LFS with any other host distro. Make a suggestion to me, please, which distro would be good for this procedure? No LiveCD please, I have an empty almost 100 GB partitio for the host system. Please propose a distro which has MC... I CAN use the commandline without MC, good, but WITH mc it is much easyer and faster. I am not profi in the Linux, but no beginner. Maybe power user. I can write not too difficult bash scripts, can programming in C/C++ (and a little bit in assembly...), my preferred window manager is the DWM, but I am newbie in the LFS, because I not understand good how the configure, the make, autoconf, automake and the linker work, not know they's syntax, etc. I am in the Linux autodidact, self-educated, I was never learned it in any school or training course. Actually/as a matter of fact, I was begin the LFS even just exactly because I would like to know FULLY, how a Linux system work, and because I very not like the bloatware distros (named *buntu, etc) with lot of (for me) superfluous programs. I like, agree, approve the suckless.orgphilosophy. I like the commandline and the commandline-based programs (and ncurses). But sorry, I not have a good mentor... Thus, what host distro do you suggest for me, which work good (tested) sure to this LFS? Zoli 2013/10/23 Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: @akhiezer: I tryed: CFLAGS=-O2 -g make but no changed: My final suggestion is : try a different host distro. The recent google matches for this were almost all for people updating packages on gentoo, which is why I suspect gentoo's hardening. There was one similar error for someone doing something on fedora, but at the moment I regard that as an outlier (it had no responses and apparently remains unresolved). One of the gentoo threads suggested that these errors could come from memory problems (test with memtest86), but I suspect there must also be something in the hardening which has an influence, because you are not getting a segfault. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: Dear Ken, I am sure that this is no memory problem. I have absolutely full totally new memory chipset in my laptop, and all programs work very good, both in my Sabayon (because I use not Gentoo, but Sabayon) and my old Ubuntu 11.10 distro in an other partition. Okay, I try the LFS with any other host distro. Make a suggestion to me, please, which distro would be good for this procedure? No LiveCD please, I have an empty almost 100 GB partitio for the host system. Please propose a distro which has MC... I CAN use the commandline without MC, good, but WITH mc it is much easyer and faster. I am not profi in the Linux, but no beginner. Maybe power user. I can write not too difficult bash scripts, can programming in C/C++ (and a little bit in assembly...), my preferred window manager is the DWM, but I am newbie in the LFS, because I not understand good how the configure, the make, autoconf, automake and the linker work, not know they's syntax, etc. I am in the Linux autodidact, self-educated, I was never learned it in any school or training course. Actually/as a matter of fact, I was begin the LFS even just exactly because I would like to know FULLY, how a Linux system work, and because I very not like the bloatware distros (named *buntu, etc) with lot of (for me) superfluous programs. I like, agree, approve the suckless.orgphilosophy. I like the commandline and the commandline-based programs (and ncurses). But sorry, I not have a good mentor... Thus, what host distro do you suggest for me, which work good (tested) sure to this LFS? Zoli I've no idea which distro would suit you. But whatever you use, 100GB is excessively large for a system. Many people will put the user's files in /home on a separate partition. Some people will put other data files (e.g. audio-video) on a separate partition. You can always reinstall a distro if it gets trashed, but you are the only one who can preserve and back-up your own data. Debian and debian-derived distros (ubuntu, mint) may be missing a few things (e.g. they might have mawk instead of gawk, and /bin/sh might be symlinked to dash - both these things can be fixed). Distros like Arch and fedora might be too bleeding edge (i.e. newer than what we have tested), but I will be surprised if they cause many problems (I'm assuming that systemd doesn't cause a problem in building LFS - I've never used it, and have no plans to). MC is not something I like, so I've no idea which distros use it. The one benefit to a distro is that it should set up your hardware properly. Nowadays many things just work, but older or very new hardware can have problems. Wifi can be a problem, and occasionally graphics are also a problem. Suspend/hibernate also. If you can find a distro which suits you, you can use it to examine desktops and different desktop applications. I assume that debian has the widest range of these. Once you have a usable (for you) desktop, you will (I hope) find that using a graphical browser such as firefox is the easiest way to search for solutions to problems, and you will also be able to try putting multiple terms on the same desktop (if your screen is big enough) - I guess that kde, gnome, and unity (ubuntu) are probably not very good for multiple terms on the same desktop. Seriously, a desktop configured the way you like it, with multiple terms, is the most productive way to write scripts or code IMHO. I'd better not forget to mention Slackware. You might do best to spend a few weeks playing around with different distros - for normal use, I guess that 10GB is plenty for a system, but you may have trouble getting multiple distros to play nicely with each other - particularly when setting up grub, but also the user and group IDs. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Dear Ken, I need the new distro from you suggestion ONLY, JUST for the building of LFS, no for other works/jobs! No problem, if it not have wifi-possibility or others. I saved the full LFS and BLFS books to my new-used partition, I will work from its. And I was downloaded all needed packages, of course. I will install the new host distro, and build LFS. If I would like work/play any other, then reboot to my Sabayon. Therefore, I no need full-featured desktop environment. Just a lightweight WM with a browser to read the LFS book, mc (not musthaved, but I like it) and nothing else, just I should can build my LFS. I need the host distro just temporarily, ad interim. Which distro you do use nowadays for build you LFS system? Or, it is would be much easyer to my, that if you have a full temporary system as written in the LFS book, - finished to the 5.35 chapter - then you pack it to a tar.bz2 file, and send me its download link. I download it, unpack it to my partition, change ownership, and begin at this chapter I continue the building of my own LFS system, with chroot and others. This is a little bit would be alike to the Gentoo, from stage3, I think. Zoli 2013/10/23 Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: Dear Ken, I am sure that this is no memory problem. I have absolutely full totally new memory chipset in my laptop, and all programs work very good, both in my Sabayon (because I use not Gentoo, but Sabayon) and my old Ubuntu 11.10 distro in an other partition. Okay, I try the LFS with any other host distro. Make a suggestion to me, please, which distro would be good for this procedure? No LiveCD please, I have an empty almost 100 GB partitio for the host system. Please propose a distro which has MC... I CAN use the commandline without MC, good, but WITH mc it is much easyer and faster. I am not profi in the Linux, but no beginner. Maybe power user. I can write not too difficult bash scripts, can programming in C/C++ (and a little bit in assembly...), my preferred window manager is the DWM, but I am newbie in the LFS, because I not understand good how the configure, the make, autoconf, automake and the linker work, not know they's syntax, etc. I am in the Linux autodidact, self-educated, I was never learned it in any school or training course. Actually/as a matter of fact, I was begin the LFS even just exactly because I would like to know FULLY, how a Linux system work, and because I very not like the bloatware distros (named *buntu, etc) with lot of (for me) superfluous programs. I like, agree, approve the suckless.orgphilosophy. I like the commandline and the commandline-based programs (and ncurses). But sorry, I not have a good mentor... Thus, what host distro do you suggest for me, which work good (tested) sure to this LFS? Zoli I've no idea which distro would suit you. But whatever you use, 100GB is excessively large for a system. Many people will put the user's files in /home on a separate partition. Some people will put other data files (e.g. audio-video) on a separate partition. You can always reinstall a distro if it gets trashed, but you are the only one who can preserve and back-up your own data. Debian and debian-derived distros (ubuntu, mint) may be missing a few things (e.g. they might have mawk instead of gawk, and /bin/sh might be symlinked to dash - both these things can be fixed). Distros like Arch and fedora might be too bleeding edge (i.e. newer than what we have tested), but I will be surprised if they cause many problems (I'm assuming that systemd doesn't cause a problem in building LFS - I've never used it, and have no plans to). MC is not something I like, so I've no idea which distros use it. The one benefit to a distro is that it should set up your hardware properly. Nowadays many things just work, but older or very new hardware can have problems. Wifi can be a problem, and occasionally graphics are also a problem. Suspend/hibernate also. If you can find a distro which suits you, you can use it to examine desktops and different desktop applications. I assume that debian has the widest range of these. Once you have a usable (for you) desktop, you will (I hope) find that using a graphical browser such as firefox is the easiest way to search for solutions to problems, and you will also be able to try putting multiple terms on the same desktop (if your screen is big enough) - I guess that kde, gnome, and unity (ubuntu) are probably not very good for multiple terms on the same desktop. Seriously, a desktop configured the way you like it, with multiple terms, is the most productive way to write scripts or code IMHO. I'd better not forget to mention Slackware. You might do best to spend a few weeks playing around with different distros - for normal use, I guess that 10GB is plenty for a system, but you may
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:00:36PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: Dear Ken, I need the new distro from you suggestion ONLY, JUST for the building of LFS, no for other works/jobs! No problem, if it not have wifi-possibility or others. I saved the full LFS and BLFS books to my new-used partition, I will work from its. And I was downloaded all needed packages, of course. I will install the new host distro, and build LFS. If I would like work/play any other, then reboot to my Sabayon. Therefore, I no need full-featured desktop environment. Just a lightweight WM with a browser to read the LFS book, mc (not musthaved, but I like it) and nothing else, just I should can build my LFS. I need the host distro just temporarily, ad interim. Which distro you do use nowadays for build you LFS system? To answer that last question - LFS. I have used debian-ppc and then ubuntu for my non x86 boxes, but the last x86 distro I used was probably mandrake-7.2. Is sabayon the gentoo-based hardened distro you were using ? Or did you actually install gentoo ? Or, it is would be much easyer to my, that if you have a full temporary system as written in the LFS book, - finished to the 5.35 chapter - then you pack it to a tar.bz2 file, and send me its download link. I download it, unpack it to my partition, change ownership, and begin at this chapter I continue the building of my own LFS system, with chroot and others. This is a little bit would be alike to the Gentoo, from stage3, I think. Zoli Four reasons why I can't do that : 1. I don't have such a tarball. 2. Size - I don't have anywhere to upload large files. 3. Licensing - you would need my buildscripts, and I would also have to offer to supply you with the source tarballs for a reasonable time, at least for the GPL'd packages. 4. I'm normally building on x86_64. You are building i686. At this point, perhaps I should mention that we really dislike top posting. You mentioned that you didn't like ubuntu : if you have a fairly-recent ubuntu CD, that should be good enough : install it and then boot ubuntu, install a minimal desktop instead of the bloated 'buntu desktop (I prefer icewm, but xfce is nearly as useful), your mc, and then whatever it needs for LFS - build-essentials, and replacing the dash symlink is my guess. Check the host system requirements in the book. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Okay, thanks. 2013/10/23 Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:00:36PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: Dear Ken, I need the new distro from you suggestion ONLY, JUST for the building of LFS, no for other works/jobs! No problem, if it not have wifi-possibility or others. I saved the full LFS and BLFS books to my new-used partition, I will work from its. And I was downloaded all needed packages, of course. I will install the new host distro, and build LFS. If I would like work/play any other, then reboot to my Sabayon. Therefore, I no need full-featured desktop environment. Just a lightweight WM with a browser to read the LFS book, mc (not musthaved, but I like it) and nothing else, just I should can build my LFS. I need the host distro just temporarily, ad interim. Which distro you do use nowadays for build you LFS system? To answer that last question - LFS. I have used debian-ppc and then ubuntu for my non x86 boxes, but the last x86 distro I used was probably mandrake-7.2. Is sabayon the gentoo-based hardened distro you were using ? Or did you actually install gentoo ? Or, it is would be much easyer to my, that if you have a full temporary system as written in the LFS book, - finished to the 5.35 chapter - then you pack it to a tar.bz2 file, and send me its download link. I download it, unpack it to my partition, change ownership, and begin at this chapter I continue the building of my own LFS system, with chroot and others. This is a little bit would be alike to the Gentoo, from stage3, I think. Zoli Four reasons why I can't do that : 1. I don't have such a tarball. 2. Size - I don't have anywhere to upload large files. 3. Licensing - you would need my buildscripts, and I would also have to offer to supply you with the source tarballs for a reasonable time, at least for the GPL'd packages. 4. I'm normally building on x86_64. You are building i686. At this point, perhaps I should mention that we really dislike top posting. You mentioned that you didn't like ubuntu : if you have a fairly-recent ubuntu CD, that should be good enough : install it and then boot ubuntu, install a minimal desktop instead of the bloated 'buntu desktop (I prefer icewm, but xfce is nearly as useful), your mc, and then whatever it needs for LFS - build-essentials, and replacing the dash symlink is my guess. Check the host system requirements in the book. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:31:19PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: Hi, excuse me for the bad English... I try LFS from Sabayon host system, with this GCC version: lfs@Csiszilla /Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build $ gcc --version gcc (Gentoo Hardened 4.7.2-r1 p1.5, pie-0.5.5) 4.7.2 The binutils succeeded. The GCC not. It wrote me this error message: build/genautomata ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md \ insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c /bin/sh: line 1: 24043 Bus error build/genautomata ../../gcc-4.8.1/gcc/config/i386/i386.md insn-conditions.md tmp-automata.c make[3]: *** [s-automata] Error 135 Apparently, a bus error differs from a segfault - valid memory is being accessed in an invalid way. The example google found was for unaligned accesses on architectures where those are illegal. i686 is generally very permissive, so I can't imagine what sort of access would cause this. Google did find similar examples on gentoo lists (users trying to emerge gcc and getting a Bus error). Apparently, the pie setting was involved. I've no idea how you would reduce the hardening on a gentoo system. Someone in another gentoo response suggested reducing the CFLAGS to something sane - if you are following LFS exactly, then the default CFLAGS from the package should be used. I -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti are from the package. But if you did set those, try without them. My significant variables: lfs@Csiszilla /Mount/Simplicity/sources/gcc-build $ echo $LFS /Mount/Simplicity Might work nowadays, but we always recommend /mnt/lfs. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses 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: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
Excuse me, I am very newbie and very idiotic... I tryed it: CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti; make CFLAGS=--fno-exceptions --fno-rtti; make but nothing changed, the compile not succeeded, same error message... 2013/10/22 Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:12:09PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: Someone in another gentoo response suggested reducing the CFLAGS to something sane - if you are following LFS exactly, then the default CFLAGS from the package should be used. I -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti are from the package. But if you did set those, try without them. That second sentence should start I assume -fno-exceptions ... ^^ ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Newbie need help - bus error in 5.5. GCC-4.8.1 - Pass 1
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 07:41:24PM -0400, Viola Zoltán wrote: Excuse me, I am very newbie and very idiotic... I tryed it: CFLAGS=-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti; make CFLAGS=--fno-exceptions --fno-rtti; make but nothing changed, the compile not succeeded, same error message... I intended you to try REMOVING those CFLAGS by setting CFLAGS to just -O2 -g, but ONLY if they were already set in your LFS user's CFLAGS. I know you posted some variables in your original post, but perhaps your lfs user has mangaged to acquire some other settings from the host distro ? I don't understand the details of gentoo, but running 'printenv' as the lfs user should enable you to check that if you are in any doubt. Or 'printenv | less' if htings have been picked up. Also, if you do change anything like that you need to use freshly untarred source and a fresh (empty) build directory, and specify them when you run configure. But I think the most likely problem is that your gentoo system has been hardened, and I have no idea how to deal with that. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Using 'find' to Help Make Package Users Simpler
This may come close to or straddle the off topic line for this list.
I thought I'd ask my question anyway since there are some who use the
More Control hint and who run into some of the same frustrations that I
do. There is a question about the use of find in this post. If you
don't want to read the reasoning behind doing this and some history skip
the following three paragraphs.
The install directory is an important concept in this system. It is a
directory in which any package user can write, but that files in it can
be changed only by the owner of that file--ug=rwx,o=rxt. The initial set
of these directories is listed in a file called installdirs.lst. This
file is used to set the permissions of all directories to which
different package users could write. The most frustrating, naggy and
four letter word evoking event is trying to write to a directory made
by a different package user and in which the current package user cannot
write. This is the purpose of the auxiliary install group. The
trick, then, is to identify all the new directories from a package and
make them install directories. This used to be a really down-in
-the-trenches manual job.
Rob Taylor did some great work in scripting the search for new
directories. He has a series of 'find' statements that step through the
directory tree--/usr, /bin, /lib, et.al.--finding all directories and
sending them to installdirs.lst. He then has a sed command that
removes /usr/src/ tree directories--this is the tree in which the
package users have their home directories and these should not be group
writable. He then has two statements 'chown' and 'chmod' whose input is
$(cat installdirs.lst).
This system works and is really a nice addition to package users'
support. The first 'find' statement re-creates installdirs.lst and
the remaining 6 append to it. And sed removes /usr/src each time. I
thought it would be more economical to not over write installdirs.lst
each time, and to use 'find' to identify only the new directories,
change their group ownership, then their permissions, and finally append
them to installdirs.lst. I know that find is powerful enough to ignore
/usr/src, so the need for the sed statement goes away.
Here's the find statement:
find / -xdev -type d -gid $(id -g packageuser name) \! -path /usr/src
\! -path /tools -print
This statement achieves all the parameters stated above with the
addition that it ignores /tools also. Now I would like to change group
ownership and permissions and redirect the output to installdirs.lst. I
know I could do that using an intermediate file:
find tmpfile
chown $(cat tmpfile)
chmod $(cat tmpfile)
tmpfile installdirs.lst
rm tmpfile
But, and here's the real question of this post, can I do this with one
statement? Here's my first idea:
'find' | 'chown' | 'chmod' installdirs.lst
Or, can I use more than one -exec option in 'find'? The statement would
look something like this
find (stuff) -exec chown :install {} \; -exec chmod ug=rwx, o=rxt {} \;
installdirs.lst
The reason I'm asking this question is that one of my references says
[-exec] will execute the program once per file while xargs can handle
several files with each process. I've never been successful with xargs
and I don't know if 'find' will, then ignore the second -exec. I
haven't been able to glean anymore from wandering around on the internet
and wading through man pages.
I have piped the output of find only once many times, but I don't know
if the output would survive two pipes.
I guess that it's just one question after all. Can I use chained
pipes or -execs before I redirect?
Anyone have any comments or suggestions. In the meantime, I'll just
play. What can I do, but screw things up, and I've done that twice this
week already.
Sorry for the long post. I appreciate your patience.
Thanks,
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Using 'find' to Help Make Package Users Simpler
Le 16/10/2013 20:43, Dan McGhee a écrit :
[...]
Here's the find statement:
find / -xdev -type d -gid $(id -g packageuser name) \! -path /usr/src
\! -path /tools -print
This statement achieves all the parameters stated above with the
addition that it ignores /tools also. Now I would like to change group
ownership and permissions and redirect the output to installdirs.lst. I
know I could do that using an intermediate file:
find tmpfile
chown $(cat tmpfile)
chmod $(cat tmpfile)
tmpfile installdirs.lst
rm tmpfile
But, and here's the real question of this post, can I do this with one
statement? Here's my first idea:
'find' | 'chown' | 'chmod' installdirs.lst
I do not know if chown can read standard input. If it would, the first pipe
would work. But
the second will never work, since it takes the output off the chown command,
not that of find...
Or, can I use more than one -exec option in 'find'? The statement would
look something like this
find (stuff) -exec chown :install {} \; -exec chmod ug=rwx, o=rxt {} \;
installdirs.lst
The reason I'm asking this question is that one of my references says
[-exec] will execute the program once per file while xargs can handle
several files with each process. I've never been successful with xargs
and I don't know if 'find' will, then ignore the second -exec. I
haven't been able to glean anymore from wandering around on the internet
and wading through man pages.
I have piped the output of find only once many times, but I don't know
if the output would survive two pipes.
I guess that it's just one question after all. Can I use chained
pipes or -execs before I redirect?
I've never tried two -exec directives in find, sorry. What I know is that xargs
is more flexible,
and I recommand that you insist on having it work.
It could be something similar to:
find... -print| xargs -I xxx sh -c 'chmod xxx; chown xxx; echo xxx
installdirs.lst'
more robust:
find... -print0 | xargs -0 -I xxx sh -c 'chmod xxx; chown xxx; echo xxx
installdirs.lst'
Good luck
Pierre
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Using 'find' to Help Make Package Users Simpler
On 10/16/2013 03:15 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote: I've never tried two -exec directives in find, sorry. What I know is that xargs is more flexible, and I recommand that you insist on having it work. It could be something similar to: find... -print| xargs -I xxx sh -c 'chmod xxx; chown xxx; echo xxx installdirs.lst' more robust: find... -print0 | xargs -0 -I xxx sh -c 'chmod xxx; chown xxx; echo xxx installdirs.lst' Good luck Pierre Thank you, Pierre! I now know why I was not successful with xargs. I didn't know about sh -c. I never really jumped into the examples at the end of the man page. And know I need to really get a firm handle on all the options for xargs so I can use it. I don't understand, though, -I xxx. First, I don't know what the xxx would mean, and secondly, the way I see it in my limited knowlege, the file name would be the standard input, but what string would it be replacing. My understanding of -I is that standard input would replace some string. Would you please tell me if my understanding of -I is right, and then indicate what I might put in place of xxx. Thanks, Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Using 'find' to Help Make Package Users Simpler
On 10/16/2013 03:59 PM, Dan McGhee wrote: On 10/16/2013 03:15 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote: I've never tried two -exec directives in find, sorry. What I know is that xargs is more flexible, and I recommand that you insist on having it work. It could be something similar to: find... -print| xargs -I xxx sh -c 'chmod xxx; chown xxx; echo xxx installdirs.lst' more robust: find... -print0 | xargs -0 -I xxx sh -c 'chmod xxx; chown xxx; echo xxx installdirs.lst' Good luck Pierre My understanding of -I is that standard input would replace some string. Would you please tell me if my understanding of -I is right, and then indicate what I might put in place of xxx. Thanks, Dan I had it exactly backwards! -I replaces standard input with a specified string. I used, simply, file. The command line with print0 did exactly what I wanted. Maybe I should now learn about aliases instead of writing a one line script. :) Thanks again, Pierre. You really helped. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Need help with libass install
On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Dave Wagler wrote: I just can't figure out how to write the configure command to suppress this check. Thanks for any help. Libass isn't in BLFS. Where did you get libass? Maybe you need to install fribidi! Sincerely, William Harrington-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition
Hi everybody, Thanks for all the advice, so far. @Pierre: I'll give that a go, if all else fails. Somehow, removing the linux partition seems a bit scary, especially after my recent experience :) @akh: I'm afraid the disk cloning is not an option. My computer is a laptop, and it's the only one i got, atm, so I can't really attach the disk to another computer. Also, it's 500GB and i don't have another disk that size. @Aleksander: Hm, that doesn't sound too hopeful. To be honest, i don't need Windows, desperately, and I'm worried i'll screw up my linux partition, as well. I think I should probably read up a bit more on partitions and take it from there. Who knows, maybe it's even time to start from scratch... Thanks again, Tilman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition
Hi, so this is a bit emberassing, and I appreciate if you say this is nothing to do with you. I have this dual boot Ubuntu 12.04/Windows 7 setup. And to make room for th LFS partitions i decided to shrink the Windows 7 partition. So, I read around a bit and got a bit confused by all the tools out there for working with partitions, but in the end I decided to go with partman, as it supposedly was going to do the resizing of the ntfs file system and of the partition in one go. Alas, partman bummed out half-way through and after that wouldn't start up, anymore. So, I thought i'd do it the hard way and re-size the file system and partition separately. I used ntfs2resize to re-size the file system and that went swimmingly. I then wanted to shrink the partition to match the file system and this is where things went wrong. None of the tools I looked at seemed to shrink a partition, but i found some instructions that said i should delete the partition and re-create it starting at the same offset, but with the new, smaller size. So that's what I did. I deleted the partition using fdisk. Only after deleting the partition, it wouldn't let me create a new one at the exact same offset, as before. It now says the extended partition starts where the ntfs partition used to start and will only let me create a new partition a few sectors after where it originally was. I tried various tools (fdisk, sfdisk, cfdisk, dparted, gparted), but none let me do what i wanted easily, and so i chickened out and thought i'd ask for help. Unsurprisingly, I can no longer boot into Windows, now. Any help would be much appreciated. This is how my partition table looks, atm: sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders, total 1465149168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x05b005af Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 206848 1465147391 732470272 5 Extended /dev/sda5 1024004096 1449783295 212889600 83 Linux /dev/sda6 1449785344 1465147391 7681024 82 Linux swap / Solaris Ideally, i'd like to create the ntfs partition starting at sector 206848. Any ideas how i can do that, or get back my windows partition, otherwise? Thanks in advance, Tilman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition
Le 10/03/2013 10:33, tilmanbregler a écrit : Hi, so this is a bit emberassing, and I appreciate if you say this is nothing to do with you. I have this dual boot Ubuntu 12.04/Windows 7 setup. And to make room for th LFS partitions i decided to shrink the Windows 7 partition. [...] This is how my partition table looks, atm: sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders, total 1465149168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x05b005af Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 206848 1465147391 732470272 5 Extended /dev/sda5 1024004096 1449783295 212889600 83 Linux /dev/sda6 1449785344 1465147391 7681024 82 Linux swap / Solaris Well, so which is your Ubuntu partition: /dev/sda5? It seems that there is a NTFS partition at /dev/sda1. What is it? I thought Windows needed only one partition, but maybe it is not true. Anyway, you could try two things: 1) Shrink the first partition by one sector (this involves shrinking first the filesystem), then remove the extended partition and recreate it starting at 206847 (this involves removing first /dev/sda5-6 and recreating them afterwards, at the same sectors of course, see 2) below for something slightly more detailed). Then recreate the Windows partition starting at 206848. 2) Remove first the extended partition /dev/sda3. This involves removing /dev/sda5 and 6, too, so you might loose your linux systems if something goes wrong. Of course, keep a track of the sectors of those partitions... -Create a primary partition (/dev/sda2) for the NTFS system starting at 206848 and with a size enough to contain your Windows system. -Recreate the extended partition starting just after /dev/sda2 and extending to the end of the disk. -Recreate logical partitions /dev/sda5 and 6 with the same sectors as before. -Cross fingers and write the table to disk (well, instead of crossing fingers, think long before you do, print the partition table and double check everything. As long as you do not type 'w', you cannot screw things more than they are...) Remember, all of this may fail for just one typo! Regards and good luck Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:33:39 + From: tilmanbregler tilmanbreg...@gmail.com To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition . . so this is a bit emberassing, and I appreciate if you say this is nothing to do with you. I have this dual boot Ubuntu 12.04/Windows 7 setup. And to make room for th LFS partitions i decided to shrink the Windows 7 partition. . . 206848. Any ideas how i can do that, or get back my windows partition, otherwise? Thanks in advance, Tilman The following is just about the first step - making a backup - and not about the subsequent recovery steps. In situations like this, it's a good idea to, as a zeroeth step: stop, do nothing to/with/for/on the disk for the time being, and think things through; don't take 'lunges' at it, or you run a quickly-escalating risk of being drawn (further) into the quicksand. Ideally, and before any further other operations on the disk, get a clone of it and verify that the clone is an accurate copy: that way, you have a backup/snapshot of your present state, that you can fall back on if necessary (at which stage you'd make a clone of the clone before proceeding, and so on). For making the clone, you will ideally need a spare additional disk that is empty and/or that you are OK to overwrite, and whose capacity is larger than the Ubuntu/'Win' disk. Ideally, take the present Ubuntu/'Win' disk and the 'spare additional disk', attach each as a dumb disk to another machine, and use dd to make the clone: but be very careful and clear about source and target disks, and dd usage - especially those common usages that will **WIPE** out your target disk - , and so on through the usual list of caveats, including that you want the 'another machine' to treat the Ubuntu/'Win' disk as a dumb disk, and not try to do anything fancy or 'automated' to the disk. If that's really not possible then can you attach the 'spare additional disk' to the original machine, boot into Ubuntu from the Ubuntu/'Win' disk, and use dd from there. Again, the same list of warnings c apply here as above. NB that this is a less-ideal situation than the one above, as here the Ubuntu/'Win' is not playing an 'inert'/'passive' role, because here you're booting from it. Once you have done the clone, test it (the clone) by trying to boot Ubuntu from it: ideally connect it to the original machine in place of the original Ubuntu/'Win' disk (temporarily, for the purposes of the test), connected in exactly the same way (same ports, etc). If/when you get to the login prompt, just login and do a graceful shutdown of the machine. You might also want to verify similarly that it will boot in another machine - or at least can be mounted and find/cat/ls works ok in another machine. But don't do anything beyond that - you don't want to be changing the clone (other than perhaps the login and command-history being recorded). If you don't have a 'spare additional disk' at all, then perhaps if possible consider obtaining one: it should be larger than the Ubuntu/'Win' disk, else you'd have to juggle a lot, with the risk of confusion and foot-shooting/branch-sawing. If you do have a 'spare additional disk' but can't afford to wipe it, then be aware that dd can write its output to an ordinary file. You'd still need to have enough spare space to write the clone-image file: else you're back to the stage of obtaining a suitable disk that has got enough space for making the clone. But you really must be careful, in this scenario, to not wipe the disk: you're, in this scenario, writing dd's output to an ordinary file in the filesystem of the 'spare additional disk'. And you've got some juggling and extra steps to do in verifying - or later using - the clone. Best, overall, to have a 'spare additional disk' that you can wipe and that is larger than the original Ubuntu/'Win' disk. Proceed with caution and deliberation. Keep a clear picture of what disks are where, what is on them at each stage, etc. Keep a clear picture of what you're doing: else back off for a bit until you do; again, don't take lunges at situations like this. hth, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:33:39 + tilmanbregler tilmanbreg...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 750.2 GB, 750156374016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders, total 1465149168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x05b005af Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 206848 1465147391 732470272 5 Extended /dev/sda5 1024004096 1449783295 212889600 83 Linux /dev/sda6 1449785344 1465147391 7681024 82 Linux swap / Solaris Ideally, i'd like to create the ntfs partition starting at sector 206848. Any ideas how i can do that, or get back my windows partition, otherwise? Thanks in advance, Tilman In short, what you wish to do is impossible, as such. The standard issue PC partition table has only four slots for partitions, called physical partitions. In the case more partitions are needed, the last partition gets subpartitioned. The subpartition table is kept at the start of the fourth partition. These subpartitions are called virtual partitions. So you are unable to make the NTFS partition start at 206848 presumably because that is the first sector of where the virtual partition table is being kept. If you did at one point write a 5-partition table to the disk, with the NTFS partition starting beyond sector 206848, with the content between the end of /dev/sda1 and the start of NTFS partition being unaccounted for, I am afraid that the start of your NTFS partition (and, by extension, NTFS filesystem) has been nuked. If, on the other hand, you did not write a 5-partition layout to the disk, it is still possible for the resizing of the NTFS filesystem to have hosed your Windows. This possibility has to do with bootloaders and the way they find later stages. Because the Master Boot Record of either the entire disk or just a partition is very, very small, the very first stage of the bootloader also has to be very small which translates into the bootloader being very dumb. This stupidity is normaly worked around by having the first stage of the bootloader seek a preprogrammed sector on the disk, loading the second stage of the bootloader contained therein and passing control to it. What this means is that once the first stage of the bootloader gets written into the MBR, the file containing the second stage Must. Not. Be. Touched. Otherwise, the first stage will not be able to find it. [See footnote for aditional words of I-leaned-this-the-hard-way-just-like-you-now wisdom.] It is entirely possible that during the resizing of the NTFS the resizing program moved the second stage bootloader. Footnote: In the case bootloader is single-stage, like LILO is, the system operates in a similar way. Instead of searching for the second stage bootloader, LILO is searching a specific array of disk sectors for the Linux kernel. For this reason, in every case that the kernel gets changed, LILO has to be rewritten into the MBR so that the new kernel can be found. Footnote.2: You know, it may be possible to get around this problem by writing the contents of the new file into the old file. ((cat newfile oldfile) instead of (cp newfile oldfile)) However, the contents would have to be of the same length and you would have to rely on the filesystem to not move the files around (I think ext3 does move files (reallocate the sectors for the file) in this case but ext2 does not move them; ext3 can be changed into ext2 by turning off the journal). -- You don't need an AI for a robot uprising. Humans will do just fine. --Skynet -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help, i hosed my windows partition
One other thing, although it qualifies as a false hope: it just may be possible, at least theorethically, to recover most or all of the contents of the NTFS partition. So if you did manage to nuke the few starting sectors of your NTFS partition, do not lose hope just yet - unless the damage hit a critical part of the filesystem (which is very likely - it did hit the start of the partition, after all), it should be possible to extract most or even all files and directories. Although there are no guarantees - a part of some file could have been written over, or a directory may have lost some or all of its contents. Note that this method relies on having either a library or a program available that can perform the appropriate functions. I do not know of any that exist right now, especially for NTFS, but if you have something very important that you have not backed up somewhere else, maybe either look around for such a program or keep on to the image file of the damaged filesystem (partiton) until such a program gets written (because it eventually will). -- You don't need an AI for a robot uprising. Humans will do just fine. --Skynet -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] help, error during compilation of binutils2.22 pass 2
Hello, during the compilation of Binutils-2.22 - Pass 2. configure, the make and make install goes without errors, but when I wrote make -C ld clean make -C ld LIB_PATH=/usr/lib:/lib I get the following error for the second command line: /tools/bin/ld: this linker was not configured to use sysroots collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [libldtestplug.la] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/binutils-build/ld' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/binutils-build/ld' make: *** [all] Error 2 make: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/binutils-build/ld' I had searched in vain, I have found no solution. Could someone help me? Thank you in advance PS: Note that I am running ubuntu 4.12 64bit and I'm in the book lfs7.2 I've already written an email, but I did not know that I need to be registered. I precise english is not my fisrt language. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sun, 2012-12-02 at 15:01 +1300, Simon Geard wrote: I think Ken has pointed me in the right direction - bash links not to libncurses or libncursesw, but to plain-old libcurses, and I seem to have missed the commands that create the linker script that redirects that one. I've just fixed it, and kicked off a fresh build to see if it worked. And just to confirm, that was it. Not a problem with the linker like I'd assumed - just a missed step in the ncurses build. Seeing as it was complaining about libncurses (rather than libcurses) not being found, it never occurred to me to double-check that. Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sun, 2012-12-02 at 21:14 +1300, Simon Geard wrote: And just to confirm, that was it. Not a problem with the linker like I'd assumed - just a missed step in the ncurses build. Seeing as it was complaining about libncurses (rather than libcurses) not being found, it never occurred to me to double-check that. Sigh... turns out there *was* something significantly wrong with the linker, which I only discovered on nuking /tools after the build finished successfully. Installing the chapter 6 binutils into /tools really doesn't help... Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 11:17 -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
First, check how Bash is linked: readelf -l /bin/bash | grep
interpret. Of course, this should say that it's looking for the dynamic
linker in /lib. Then verify you actually have all the right libraries
for Ncurses: ls -la {/usr,}/lib/*ncurses*
Yes, it's using /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, and yes, the chapter 6
version of ncurses *is* correctly installed. But that copy of ncurses is
the wide-char version, and bash has managed, somehow, to link to the
non-wide version. My assumption, as I said, is that instead of finding
the linker scripts in /usr/lib which would point it to the wide version,
it's found the non-wide version in /tools instead.
You could also just upload your build scripts for Ncurses, Readline, and
Bash.
I don't think there's anything wrong with how those packages have been
built - the scripts are just copy-paste from the book, with the usual
wrapper code for extracting tarballs and cleaning up afterwards. I
suspect the problem is something to do with the linker changes done in
Adjusting the Toolchain, but I can't see anything obvious that I've
missed there either.
Basically, I'm hoping that someone more familiar than me with the
toolchain can tell me how a chapter 6 package (bash) might be linked
against a library not installed in chapter 6 (the non-wide version of
ncurses). The obvious answer is that it's found the version built in
chapter 5, but what could cause that?
Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Simon Geard wrote: Basically, I'm hoping that someone more familiar than me with the toolchain can tell me how a chapter 6 package (bash) might be linked against a library not installed in chapter 6 (the non-wide version of ncurses). The obvious answer is that it's found the version built in chapter 5, but what could cause that? You can run strace -f chroot command and see what is going on. Also follow this: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter06/adjusting.html Do your results of those commands look good? Is /lib and /usr/lib linked properly to /lib64 and /usr/lib64 ? Since you can't chroot anymore with a broken /bin/bash, redo the / tools/bin/bash link to /bin/bash as in this section: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter06/createfiles.html Next, do your scripts remove all build and source directories after each install in ch5 and ch6? Have you done a successful build without using scripts? If so, you can do it again and check your history with your scripts. You can upload the scripts somewhere and we can look at them. Sincerely, William Harrington-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:37 AM, Simon Geard wrote: /bin/bash: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Do you also get the same problem when running /bin/more /sbin/cfdisk and /usr/bin/cal ? Those are installed by util-linux which is before bash and after ncurses. You can try psmisc's /usr/bin/pstree and see if it is having issues with libncursesw Then procps utils like /usr/bin/top and /usr/bin/watch If those are not okay, then something before ncurses is the problem I suspect. Sincerely, William Harrington-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 11:59:07PM +1300, Simon Geard wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 11:17 -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
First, check how Bash is linked: readelf -l /bin/bash | grep
interpret. Of course, this should say that it's looking for the dynamic
linker in /lib. Then verify you actually have all the right libraries
for Ncurses: ls -la {/usr,}/lib/*ncurses*
Yes, it's using /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, and yes, the chapter 6
version of ncurses *is* correctly installed. But that copy of ncurses is
the wide-char version, and bash has managed, somehow, to link to the
non-wide version. My assumption, as I said, is that instead of finding
the linker scripts in /usr/lib which would point it to the wide version,
it's found the non-wide version in /tools instead.
I don't remember seeing anything like this before.
In the distant past, I've had my own fun and games with ncurses when
I fubar'd some of the moves and symlinks. So, is your _wide_ version
of libncurses ok ?
I'm thinking perhaps something went wrong when you moved it to
/lib, so that the /usr/lib/libncursesw.so symlink is pointing to a
non-existent file.
Looking at my own *logs* from bash, it uses -lcurses so also check
that /usr/lib/libcurses.so is a symlink to libncurses.so.
If you ran the verification tests when you adjusted the toolchain,
and after installing gcc, then my money is on an error *after* that.
Of course, if you didn't run those checks (the SEARCH_DIR etc) then
all bets are off.
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: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:59:07 +1300
Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 11:17 -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
First, check how Bash is linked: readelf -l /bin/bash | grep
interpret. Of course, this should say that it's looking for the
dynamic linker in /lib. Then verify you actually have all the right
libraries for Ncurses: ls -la {/usr,}/lib/*ncurses*
Yes, it's using /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, and yes, the chapter 6
version of ncurses *is* correctly installed. But that copy of ncurses
is the wide-char version, and bash has managed, somehow, to link to
the non-wide version. My assumption, as I said, is that instead of
finding the linker scripts in /usr/lib which would point it to the
wide version, it's found the non-wide version in /tools instead.
Can you do `ldd /bin/bash'?
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:19:38 +0100
Aleksandar Kuktin akuk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:59:07 +1300
Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 11:17 -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
First, check how Bash is linked: readelf -l /bin/bash | grep
interpret. Of course, this should say that it's looking for the
dynamic linker in /lib. Then verify you actually have all the
right libraries for Ncurses: ls -la {/usr,}/lib/*ncurses*
Yes, it's using /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, and yes, the chapter 6
version of ncurses *is* correctly installed. But that copy of
ncurses is the wide-char version, and bash has managed, somehow, to
link to the non-wide version. My assumption, as I said, is that
instead of finding the linker scripts in /usr/lib which would point
it to the wide version, it's found the non-wide version in /tools
instead.
Can you do `ldd /bin/bash'?
I mean `ldd /path/to/bash/that/is/the/problem/bash'.
Also, there is an easy way to test if the problem is linking with a
library from /tools. Make a symlink.
ln -sv /usr /tools
Then try it again.
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:24:08 +0100 Aleksandar Kuktin akuk...@gmail.com wrote: I mean `ldd /path/to/bash/that/is/the/problem/bash'. Also, there is an easy way to test if the problem is linking with a library from /tools. Make a symlink. ln -sv /usr /tools Then try it again. Or maybe you can upload the offending bash binary. -- Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sat, 2012-12-01 at 16:19 +0100, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: Can you do `ldd /bin/bash'? Oddly, no. I can't use ldd because that's a shell script depending on /bin/sh working, but if I run: /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --list /bin/bash ...I get: /bin/bash: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory That's kind of surprising, actually, because I'd expect it to just list all the libraries it's linked to, but flag one of them as unresolved. But if I run the copy of ld-linux under /tools, I get: $ /tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --list /bin/bash linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7fffe3db7000) libncurses.so.5 = /tools/lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x7f3a543b2000) libdl.so.2 = /tools/lib/libdl.so.2 (0x7f3a541ae000) libc.so.6 = /tools/lib/libc.so.6 (0x7f3a53e08000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 = /tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f3a54602000) Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
On Sat, 2012-12-01 at 07:27 -0600, William Harrington wrote: On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:37 AM, Simon Geard wrote: /bin/bash: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Do you also get the same problem when running /bin/more /sbin/cfdisk and /usr/bin/cal ? Those are installed by util-linux which is before bash and after ncurses. No I don't. But build logs show that those are being linked directly to libncursesw instead of through the linker script. I think Ken has pointed me in the right direction - bash links not to libncurses or libncursesw, but to plain-old libcurses, and I seem to have missed the commands that create the linker script that redirects that one. I've just fixed it, and kicked off a fresh build to see if it worked. Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Help with a linker problem
Hey guys... Rewriting my LFS build scripts, I'm getting an interesting linking error with bash in chapter 6, and am hoping someone can point me in the right direction for tracking down the cause. Basically, bash builds correctly, but the resulting binary is bad, any attempt to invoke it resulting in: # /bin/bash --version /bin/bash: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Now, the obvious problem is that it's complaining about libncurses, not the libncursesw version built in chapter 6. As far as I can tell, it should be linked to the latter, thanks to the INPUT(-lncursesw) linker script created when we installed ncurses. My suspicion is that when the bash binary was linked, the linker found ncurses in /tools ahead of /lib, and so not applied that linker script. It then fails runtime linking, since /tools isn't in the search path at runtime (unless I put it there with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). So, it seems pretty clear that I've missed something in my script - probably in one of those first few parts of chapter 6. But I can't spot the problem myself, so I'm hoping someone can point me in the direction of what could be causing this. Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Help lfs-fr?
Hi, For various reasons, among them, a lot I don't know, lfs has more and more success in French-speaking users. It's all the more right since Denis joined the team to maintain blfs up-to-date. Subsequently, we have more support to do to help french-speaking users who don't speak English. We have some people able to help, like Denis or boloco, but they are few. Myself I don't have enough technical skills, even if I am in progress while making my own lfs-based distro for accessibility purpose. As I often see French mail addresses posting, I cast a call: if some French-speaking could help supporting French-speaking users on our forum (www.absolinux.net) and our ML (lfs-tradu...@linuxfromscratch.org), it would be wonderful. Of course they can help the global project, but I don't think they have enough time. If they could give us a little to French support, we'd appreciated. Anyway I'm happy with success of lfs fr and upstream work together! :) Sincerely, -- Jean-Philippe MENGUAL Président de l'association traduc.org Coordinateur du projet Linux From Scratch Coordinateur au sein du projet Trad GNU de l'April Animateur suppléant du groupe de travail Accessibilité de l'April -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
Richard Melville wrote: On another subject, and a minor issue, the tzdata package in the SVN-20120816 build instructions is version e but the package downloaded from the LFS repository is version c The best place to get the tz data is http://www.iana.org//time-zones/repository/releases/tzdata2012e.tar.gz I generally don't update the LFS repro for LFS until a new release. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On 12/08/12 21:16, Keiran wrote: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to mail with this, if not could you please point me in the right direction? When trying to compile GCC at Chapter 5.5, I get this error, and no amount of Googling has been able to solve it. configure: error: in `/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables Is this common? Is there an easy way to fix this? Thank you Keiran I've already searched in the FAQ etc., I couldn't find my problem, I don't know if that's just me not looking hard enough or what Thank you Keiran -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
Keiran wrote: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to mail with this Yes, this is the right list. When trying to compile GCC at Chapter 5.5, I get this error, and no amount of Googling has been able to solve it. configure: error: in `/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables Is this common? Is there an easy way to fix this? That tells me that gcc is not installed or binutils wasn't installed correctly. What is the output of the script in Section iii - 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: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On 12/08/12 21:22, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Keiran wrote: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to mail with this Yes, this is the right list. When trying to compile GCC at Chapter 5.5, I get this error, and no amount of Googling has been able to solve it. configure: error: in `/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables Is this common? Is there an easy way to fix this? That tells me that gcc is not installed or binutils wasn't installed correctly. What is the output of the script in Section iii - Host System Requirements? -- Bruce bash, version 4.2.24(1)-release Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22 bison (GNU Bison) 2.5 bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.13 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 3.1.8 gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.15-0ubuntu10) 2.15 grep (GNU grep) 2.10 gzip 1.4 Linux version 3.2.0-29-generic-pae (buildd@roseapple) (gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) ) #46-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 27 17:25:43 UTC 2012 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 patch 2.6.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha gcc compilation OK -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On Aug 12, 2012, at 15:16 PM, Keiran wrote: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to mail with this, if not could you please point me in the right direction? When trying to compile GCC at Chapter 5.5, I get this error, and no amount of Googling has been able to solve it. configure: error: in `/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables What is the contents of your /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin/ config.log ? Sincerely, William Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On 12/08/12 21:34, William Harrington wrote: On Aug 12, 2012, at 15:16 PM, Keiran wrote: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to mail with this, if not could you please point me in the right direction? When trying to compile GCC at Chapter 5.5, I get this error, and no amount of Googling has been able to solve it. configure: error: in `/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables What is the contents of your /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/lto-plugin/ config.log ? Sincerely, William Harrington This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake. It was created by LTO plugin for ld configure 0.1, which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.64. Invocation command line was $ /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-4.6.2/lto-plugin/configure --cache-file=./config.cache --prefix=/tools --disable-nls --disable-shared --disable-multilib --disable-decimal-float --disable-threads --disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libquadmath --disable-target-libiberty --disable-target-zlib --without-ppl --without-cloog --with-mpfr-include=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.6.2/mpfr/src --with-mpfr-lib=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/mpfr/src/.libs --enable-languages=c,lto --program-transform-name=s,y,y, --disable-option-checking --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i686-pc-linux-gnu --srcdir=../../gcc-4.6.2/lto-plugin --with-build-libsubdir=. --enable-shared ## - ## ## Platform. ## ## - ## hostname = ubuntu uname -m = i686 uname -r = 3.2.0-29-generic-pae uname -s = Linux uname -v = #46-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 27 17:25:43 UTC 2012 /usr/bin/uname -p = unknown /bin/uname -X = unknown /bin/arch = unknown /usr/bin/arch -k = unknown /usr/convex/getsysinfo = unknown /usr/bin/hostinfo = unknown /bin/machine = unknown /usr/bin/oslevel = unknown /bin/universe = unknown PATH: /usr/local/sbin PATH: /usr/local/bin PATH: /usr/sbin PATH: /usr/bin PATH: /sbin PATH: /bin ## --- ## ## Core tests. ## ## --- ## configure:2134: creating cache ./config.cache configure:2237: checking build system type configure:2251: result: i686-pc-linux-gnu configure:2271: checking host system type configure:2284: result: i686-pc-linux-gnu configure:2304: checking target system type configure:2317: result: i686-pc-linux-gnu configure:2405: checking for a BSD-compatible install configure:2473: result: /usr/bin/install -c configure:2484: checking whether build environment is sane configure:2534: result: yes configure:2675: checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p configure:2714: result: /bin/mkdir -p configure:2727: checking for gawk configure:2754: result: gawk configure:2765: checking whether make sets $(MAKE) configure:2787: result: yes configure:2868: checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles configure:2877: result: no configure:2898: checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc configure:2925: result: /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include configure:3194: checking for C compiler version configure:3203: /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include--version 5 xgcc (GCC) 4.6.2 Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. configure:3214: $? = 0 configure:3203: /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem /tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include-v 5 Reading specs from /mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/specs COLLECT_GCC=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/lto-wrapper Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-4.6.2/configure --target= --prefix=/tools --disable-nls --disable-shared --disable-multilib --disable-decimal-float --disable-threads --disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libquadmath --disable-target-libiberty --disable-target-zlib --enable-languages=c --without-ppl --without-cloog --with-mpfr-include=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/../gcc-4.6.2/mpfr/src --with-mpfr-lib=/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build/mpfr/src/.libs Thread model: single gcc version 4.6.2 (GCC) configure:3214: $? = 0
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
Keiran wrote: That tells me that gcc is not installed or binutils wasn't installed correctly. What is the output of the script in Section iii - Host System Requirements? bash, version 4.2.24(1)-release Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22 bison (GNU Bison) 2.5 bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.13 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 3.1.8 gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.15-0ubuntu10) 2.15 grep (GNU grep) 2.10 gzip 1.4 Linux version 3.2.0-29-generic-pae (buildd@roseapple) (gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) ) #46-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 27 17:25:43 UTC 2012 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 patch 2.6.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha gcc compilation OK OK gcc is installed, but you don't list the symlinks you have: /bin/sh - /bin/bash /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/yacc /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk Make sure the environment variable LFS is correct and that the target partition is mounted correctly. Also check that $LFS/tools exists and the symlink is there in /. I suggest redoing binutils and then follow the instructions for gcc exactly as written. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On 12/08/12 21:39, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Keiran wrote: That tells me that gcc is not installed or binutils wasn't installed correctly. What is the output of the script in Section iii - Host System Requirements? bash, version 4.2.24(1)-release Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22 bison (GNU Bison) 2.5 bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010. Coreutils: 8.13 diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2 find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2 GNU Awk 3.1.8 gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.15-0ubuntu10) 2.15 grep (GNU grep) 2.10 gzip 1.4 Linux version 3.2.0-29-generic-pae (buildd@roseapple) (gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) ) #46-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 27 17:25:43 UTC 2012 m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16 GNU Make 3.81 patch 2.6.1 Perl version='5.14.2'; GNU sed version 4.2.1 tar (GNU tar) 1.26 Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13 xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha gcc compilation OK OK gcc is installed, but you don't list the symlinks you have: /bin/sh - /bin/bash /usr/bin/yacc - /usr/bin/yacc /usr/bin/awk - /usr/bin/gawk Make sure the environment variable LFS is correct and that the target partition is mounted correctly. Also check that $LFS/tools exists and the symlink is there in /. I suggest redoing binutils and then follow the instructions for gcc exactly as written. -- Bruce I removed the said symlinks from the email, I wasn't sure they'd be necessary to be there. Already checked that $LFS is going to the correct place, /tools and the symlink for that too. I have already tried redoing binutils, I formatted the partition earlier on today thinking that I may have mistyped something and started from scratch, same issue, had the problem then, even tried building on a different host to no avail. Thank you Keiran -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On Aug 12, 2012, at 15:37 PM, Keiran wrote: --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i686-pc-linux-gnu What happened to your LFS_TGT variable? Are you using the lfs user? Make sure you are the lfs user and your environment is set up right. --target should not be your host target. --target should be i686-lfs- linux-gnu. Sincerely, William Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
On 12/08/12 22:14, William Harrington wrote: On Aug 12, 2012, at 15:37 PM, Keiran wrote: --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i686-pc-linux-gnu What happened to your LFS_TGT variable? Are you using the lfs user? Make sure you are the lfs user and your environment is set up right. --target should not be your host target. --target should be i686-lfs- linux-gnu. Sincerely, William Harrington Ah! I didn't notice that, I ran into an issue which required me to be root, I guess I forgot to change it back. Thank you Keiran -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Help with GCC Compile Pass 1 errors
William Harrington wrote: On Aug 12, 2012, at 15:37 PM, Keiran wrote: --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i686-pc-linux-gnu What happened to your LFS_TGT variable? Are you using the lfs user? Make sure you are the lfs user and your environment is set up right. --target should not be your host target. --target should be i686-lfs- linux-gnu. Good catch William! -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Not getting any output in dummy.c after GCC pass2 installation...please help...urgent
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Sumeet Shekhar sshekhar.s...@gmail.comwrote: I am not getting any output while running the program dummy.c after GCC pass2 installation. Also it says that create gcc-build directory again. Should i remove the previous gcc-build and build it again or create another build directory with some other name. What should i do..? Please help...urgent.. Thanking you, Regards -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Did you run the recommended checks as shown in the Caution section here, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/gcc-pass2.html? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Not getting any output in dummy.c after GCC pass2 installation...please help...urgent
On 23/03/12 08:26, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Sumeet Shekhar sshekhar.s...@gmail.com mailto:sshekhar.s...@gmail.com wrote: I am not getting any output while running the program dummy.c after GCC pass2 installation. Also it says that create gcc-build directory again. Should i remove the previous gcc-build and build it again or create another build directory with some other name. What should i do..? Please help...urgent.. Thanking you, Regards -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Did you run the recommended checks as shown in the Caution section here, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter05/gcc-pass2.html? Yes delete the gcc-build directory and the gcc directory then untar again -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Not getting any output in dummy.c after GCC pass2 installation...please help...urgent
I am not getting any output while running the program dummy.c after GCC pass2 installation. Also it says that create gcc-build directory again. Should i remove the previous gcc-build and build it again or create another build directory with some other name. What should i do..? Please help...urgent.. Thanking you, Regards -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] Wow - I think I'll be here a little less now except to help...
I've been managing to get more consistent results in VirtualBox. Boot Issues? Mostly were Grub2 Related, and getting more familiar with it has help tremendously. However as I learned more, I couldn't help but wonder why CentOS6 needs such a CRAZY startup string. They must not use the KISS principle. On a counter note, I must say there have been LESS problems in the Same VirtualBox using CentOS6 as my host versus my fond Slackware. I can only think that something about how Slackware's core is compiled leaves something to be desired for the LFS process. For Example: With VM+Slackware host, trying to compile BLFS - python2 - failed miserably while VM+CentOS6, trying to compile python2 worked like a champ. Adding to the confusion, when I used Slackware as a host on my machine directly (no Virtual Machine) I only have networking issues which I've yet to conquer but all indications are my Broadcom NIC (tg3) might possibly work better as a loadable module, and the load order may have significance. Loading the tg3 driver into the kernel has not worked for me yet, and evidently I have a finicky card that can quietly refuse to work if its not happy. I guess my next steps are continuing writing BLFS scripts which I'm happy to report I run entirely IN my new LFS OS... reporting myself as an official LFS user, and getting on another mailing list. I do have a question or two but they belong in BLFS mailing list. So this is my I DID IT (with your help) Scream at the world email. LFS 7.0 WORKS! Even if my lib mudflap still fails me - hehehe Thank you everyone! (I'll still be around) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] LFS issues in general - Glad there is a great community to help...
Kevin Wise, Bruce Dubbs, Matjn Thank you for all your responses... What I from all that is I need to backtrack and just double and triple check all my steps again. I have seen and try to do all the steps - but I'm missing a few surely. Thank you for your feedback! And as one of ya encouraged: Don't Give up! I don't plan too! LOL I'll get there... I'm one heck of a developer, I'll get this - it's just taking longer than I anticipated. --Jason -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
Ok thx downloaded and installed opensuse11.4 knoppix is not my thing everything different again. Cheers, Henk Van: lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org [lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org] namens Chris Staub [ch...@beaker67.com] Verzonden: donderdag 15 december 2011 18:51 Aan: LFS Support List Onderwerp: Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header On 12/15/2011 02:18 AM, Henk Teijema wrote: Guess I overlooked The LiveCD cannot be used to build LFS 7.0 or later. So what liveCD should I use then? Met vriendelijke groet, Henk Just download any fairly recent distro...Fedora, Ubuntu, etc...and if needed install whatever additional packages are necessary to meet the Host System Requirements. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
On 12/15/2011 02:18 AM, Henk Teijema wrote: Guess I overlooked The LiveCD cannot be used to build LFS 7.0 or later. So what liveCD should I use then? Met vriendelijke groet, Henk Just download any fairly recent distro...Fedora, Ubuntu, etc...and if needed install whatever additional packages are necessary to meet the Host System Requirements. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
Guess I overlooked The LiveCD cannot be used to build LFS 7.0 or later. So what liveCD should I use then? There's the gentoo live dvd available at the bottom of this page: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml it has current up-to-date tools to build LFS. Alain -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
Configure stops with error: configureL error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header Host Proc Arch = i686 Gcc -version = 4.1.2 Cupid.h is in /mnt/lfs/tools/lib/gcc/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include/cupid.h What do I need to do to fix this? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:04:32 +0100 Henk Teijema h.teij...@genetwister.nl wrote: Configure stops with error: configureL error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header Host Proc Arch = i686 Gcc -version = 4.1.2 Cupid.h is in /mnt/lfs/tools/lib/gcc/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include/cupid.h What do I need to do to fix this? Perhaps you forgot to apply the cpuid patch? Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
Nope did not forget that one In other news groups I read that gcc is a too old version. Use gcc 4.1.2 from the LFS liveCD 6.3 The trick to copy the cupid.h to /usr/include results in: checking installed Linux kernel header files... TOO OLD! Gonna burn a Knoppic 6.7.1 LiveCD hope all needed tools are on it. Keep you posted :) Henk -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org [mailto:lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org] Namens Andrew Benton Verzonden: woensdag 14 december 2011 14:20 Aan: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Onderwerp: Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:04:32 +0100 Henk Teijema h.teij...@genetwister.nl wrote: Configure stops with error: configureL error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header Host Proc Arch = i686 Gcc -version = 4.1.2 Cupid.h is in /mnt/lfs/tools/lib/gcc/i686-lfs-linux-gnu/4.6.1/include/cupid.h What do I need to do to fix this? Perhaps you forgot to apply the cpuid patch? 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: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
Henk Teijema wrote: Nope did not forget that one In other news groups I read that gcc is a too old version. Use gcc 4.1.2 from the LFS liveCD 6.3 The trick to copy the cupid.h to /usr/include results in: checking installed Linux kernel header files... TOO OLD! Have you seen: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/ -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] linux raid on blfs- help required
Hi, ext4 is currently limited to 16tb, and you're looking for 18 if I understood right. Only very recent packages have lifted the 16tb limit. - Lauri -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header
Guess I overlooked The LiveCD cannot be used to build LFS 7.0 or later. So what liveCD should I use then? Met vriendelijke groet, Henk -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org [mailto:lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org] Namens Bruce Dubbs Verzonden: woensdag 14 december 2011 19:09 Aan: LFS Support List Onderwerp: Re: [lfs-support] help LFS 6.0 Ch 5.7.1 glibc-2.14.1 configure: error: gcc must provide the cpuid.h header Henk Teijema wrote: Nope did not forget that one In other news groups I read that gcc is a too old version. Use gcc 4.1.2 from the LFS liveCD 6.3 The trick to copy the cupid.h to /usr/include results in: checking installed Linux kernel header files... TOO OLD! Have you seen: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/livecd/ -- 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
LFS 6.8 - Need Help With Binutils Ch. 6.12 Make Check
First of all, thanks to the LFS developers for putting your time into LFS --
it's a GREAT resource and I'm glad I found it. This is my first attempt at
building my own Linux system.
I'm getting some errors at *make check* after building binutils in chapter
6.12. I've followed everything to the letter, with the exception of using
linux-3.0.4 rather than linux-2.6.37, and I believe that should be OK
according to an earlier note that recommended using the latest linux source.
I have not seen any other abnormalities along the way, so I'm kinda baffled.
I noticed someone else posted some errors with binutils (from ch 6) back in
May, due to ld errors, and there were a couple of sed commands to fix up the
problems. The errors I'm experiencing don't seem to be related to ld, and
the note in chapter 6.12 states that make check is critical, so I'm
concerned about just going on without addressing these errors. From what I
can tell by looking at the output, a number of *.s files in the
binutils/testsuite directory fail to assemble. Because it's the testsuite
directory, maybe it's related to the actual tests and not to any of the
binutils tools themselves? Again, it doesn't seem to be related to ld or any
other single tool from binutils, but I don't know if it's safe to ignore
these errors. Any help or ideas on what I can look for will be greatly
appreciated.
My host system is an old laptop with a Pentium M processor running Red Hat
6.0 beta. My LFS system is on its own hard 100GB drive.
Here's what I see from *make check*:
*root:/sources/binutils-build# make check*
*make[1]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build'*
*make[2]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd'*
*make check-recursive*
*make[3]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd'*
*Making check in doc*
*make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd/doc'*
*make[4]: Nothing to be done for `check'.*
*make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd/doc'*
*Making check in po*
*make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd/po'*
*make[4]: Nothing to be done for `check'.*
*make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd/po'*
*make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd'*
*make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd'*
*make[3]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd'*
*make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/bfd'*
*make[2]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/opcodes'*
*Making check in .*
*make[3]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/opcodes'*
*make[3]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/opcodes'*
*Making check in po*
*make[3]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/opcodes/po'*
*make[3]: Nothing to be done for `check'.*
*make[3]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/opcodes/po'*
*make[2]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/opcodes'*
*make[2]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils'*
*make check-recursive*
*make[3]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils'*
*Making check in doc*
*make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils/doc'*
*make[4]: Nothing to be done for `check'.*
*make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils/doc'*
*Making check in po*
*make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils/po'*
*make[4]: Nothing to be done for `check'.*
*make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils/po'*
*make[4]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils'*
*make check-DEJAGNU*
*make[5]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils'*
*Making a new site.exp file...*
*srcdir=`cd /sources/binutils-2.21/binutils pwd`; export srcdir; \*
*r=`pwd`; export r; \*
*EXPECT=expect; export EXPECT; \*
*runtest=runtest; \*
*if /bin/sh -c $runtest --version /dev/null 21; then \*
* CC_FOR_TARGET=gcc CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=-g -O2 \*
*$runtest --tool binutils --srcdir ${srcdir}/testsuite \*
*; \*
*else echo WARNING: could not find \`runtest' 12; :;\*
*fi*
*WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file.*
*WARNING: Couldn't find tool init file*
*Test Run By root on Mon Oct 17 01:49:55 2011*
*Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu*
*=== binutils tests ===*
*Schedule of variations:*
*unix*
*Running target unix*
*Using /tools/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file
for target.*
*Using /tools/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for
target.*
*Using /sources/binutils-2.21/binutils/testsuite/config/default.exp as
tool-and-target-specific interface file.*
*Running /sources/binutils-2.21/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/ar.exp
... *
*FAIL: ar long file names*
*ERROR: /sources/binutils-2.21/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/bintest.s:
assembly failed*
*ERROR: /sources/binutils-2.21/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/bintest.s:
assembly failed*
*ERROR: /sources/binutils-2.21/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/bintest.s:
assembly failed
Re: Need Help - boot fails - This cause?
On 09/25/2011 10:44 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: [putolin] I'm lost here (probably because it is late) - you've used the same host to build LFS twice, first on the old disk, and then on the new disk ? Yes that is correct. The scripts produced a LFS system that booted and worked on the old hard drive so I thought is was good. The only difference is an increase in size of the hard drive 120GB to a 500GB. I used the same host system and the same partition system on both hard drives. I also scripted the first system and copied it to a usb thumb drive to use again. After setting up the new drive I used the scripts following the build sequence to install on the newer/larger drive. I have to manually do each step following the book. I built the scripts by cutting and pasting each chapter into a script and adding a section to untarball the source package and cd to the now source directory Each script resides into a subdirectory. The script when run unpacks the tarball cd to the unpacked directoty and runs the pasted commands. The above sounds sensible, but the reality is that scripting makes it very easy to miss errors. OTOH, if you are manually running each step, any errors ought to be apparent to you. Well that is why I scripted it. This old fart has a problem reading off the nook which has the LFS-6.8 pdf and typing the correct thing into the system under build. I use this at the top of the script #!/bin/bash -e set +h shopt -s -o pipefail pkgname=automake pkgver=1.11.1 startdir=$(pwd) then do the cut and paste line with | tee $startdir/build.log at the end so I have a log of what happened so I can then lokk the result over and correct the hey look dummy errors. What I don't know is when does the kernel hand over booting to inittab etc. My theory if not flawed is that some/all binaries are linked to the /tools directory, and since /tools has beened removed it hangs. Although I could be completely wrong about this. It should be simple for you to test this theory - take a program from each package (starting with /sbin/init) and use ldd to see what it links to. If the program you picked turns out to be a shell script, try a different program from the same package (see chapter 6, I think, for what gets installed in each package ? - I don't have a graphical browser on my current desktop). OK I'll do that after I get home from work today If /sbin/init is linked to /tools, I would expect to see a meaningful error message, but who knows. If /sbin/init is NOT linked to /tools, then this appears to be a kernel config problem. If /bin/bash is linked correctly, you can also try booting with init=/bin/bash, although it won't give you a nice environment and is normally reserved for stepping through the init scripts if things have broken. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Need Help - boot fails
I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. What is the next step in the boot process. The new LFS system root file system is all on one partition Here is the partition list /dev/sda1 /boot /dev/sda2 swap /dev/sda3 / /dev/sda4 extended /dev/sda5 root of host build system , arch linux -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:52:02 -0400 scrat baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. You need to recompile your kernel. You need to work on your kernel .config and develop a working kernel that can boot your computer _without_ modules. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails
On 09/25/2011 10:33 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:52:02 -0400 scratbaho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. You need to recompile your kernel. You need to work on your kernel .config and develop a working kernel that can boot your computer _without_ modules. Andy Ok I will look at the kernel. I used a config file that had booted before on this machine Thanks -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails
scrat wrote: On 09/25/2011 10:33 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:52:02 -0400 scratbaho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. You need to recompile your kernel. You need to work on your kernel .config and develop a working kernel that can boot your computer _without_ modules. Ok I will look at the kernel. I used a config file that had booted before on this machine One thing you can probably do is use Shift-PgUp to look at earlier screens to see if there are any error messages that might have scrolled off. One suspicious thing is the [ 1.433897] number. My system is not particularly slow, but it has [3.081309] Freeing unused kernel memory: 612k freed The next things that follow on my system are the initialization of the usb HW. I agree with Andy that the kernel config look suspicious. Remember to not use modules for the first time through. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails
On 09/25/2011 12:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: scrat wrote: On 09/25/2011 10:33 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:52:02 -0400 scratbaho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. You need to recompile your kernel. You need to work on your kernel .config and develop a working kernel that can boot your computer _without_ modules. Ok I will look at the kernel. I used a config file that had booted before on this machine One thing you can probably do is use Shift-PgUp to look at earlier screens to see if there are any error messages that might have scrolled off. One suspicious thing is the [ 1.433897] number. My system is not particularly slow, but it has [3.081309] Freeing unused kernel memory: 612k freed The next things that follow on my system are the initialization of the usb HW. I agree with Andy that the kernel config look suspicious. Remember to not use modules for the first time through. -- Bruce It is a laptop dual core AMD 1600MHz I tried a kernel without modules and it failed at the same place. What does the [ 1.433897] mean? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails
That would be the time since the system(kernel) started. IIRC. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: scrat baho-u...@columbus.rr.com Sender: lfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:56:28 To: LFS Support Listlfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Reply-To: LFS Support List lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: Need Help - boot fails On 09/25/2011 12:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: scrat wrote: On 09/25/2011 10:33 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:52:02 -0400 scratbaho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. You need to recompile your kernel. You need to work on your kernel .config and develop a working kernel that can boot your computer _without_ modules. Ok I will look at the kernel. I used a config file that had booted before on this machine One thing you can probably do is use Shift-PgUp to look at earlier screens to see if there are any error messages that might have scrolled off. One suspicious thing is the [ 1.433897] number. My system is not particularly slow, but it has [3.081309] Freeing unused kernel memory: 612k freed The next things that follow on my system are the initialization of the usb HW. I agree with Andy that the kernel config look suspicious. Remember to not use modules for the first time through. -- Bruce It is a laptop dual core AMD 1600MHz I tried a kernel without modules and it failed at the same place. What does the [ 1.433897] mean? -- 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: Need Help - boot fails
Hello, On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 01:56:28PM -0400, scrat wrote: snip I have completed the LFS-6.8 book to the chapter on rebooting to the new LFS system. The kernel appears to load but fails at the point of: [ 1.433897] Freeing unused kernel memory: 400k freed It stops there and a hard reset is required. You need to recompile your kernel. You need to work on your kernel .config and develop a working kernel that can boot your computer _without_ modules. Ok I will look at the kernel. I used a config file that had booted before on this machine One thing you can probably do is use Shift-PgUp to look at earlier screens to see if there are any error messages that might have scrolled off. One suspicious thing is the [ 1.433897] number. My system is not particularly slow, but it has [3.081309] Freeing unused kernel memory: 612k freed The next things that follow on my system are the initialization of the usb HW. I agree with Andy that the kernel config look suspicious. Remember to not use modules for the first time through. -- Bruce It is a laptop dual core AMD 1600MHz I tried a kernel without modules and it failed at the same place. What does the [ 1.433897] mean? If you have the framebuffer enabled, try turning it off and see what happens. Device Drivers --- Graphics support --- Support for frame buffer devices Sometimes if there is a mismatch between the driver and video card, the kernel will boot, but the screen will remain black. Best of luck, ae -- My Blog: http://elian001.wordpress.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails - This cause?
I think I may have found the error of my ways
I am building for i686
When reviewing my build process logs I found this under Chapter 6.16
GCC-4.5.2...
When doing the compile test ie echo main(){} dummy.c...etc.
From the book:
Next, verify that the new linker is being used with the correct search
paths:
grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
If everything is working correctly, there should be no errors, and the
output of the last command (allowing for platform-specific target
triplets) will be:
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/local/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib);
Here is what I have:
SEARCH_DIR(/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib);
SEARCH_DIR(/lib)
What would cause the SEARCH_DIR to be wrong?
As far as I can tell the readjust of the tools chain occurred without error.
The ouput in my compile of GCC is the same as from the adjust tool chain
step... Is that correct?
If not could please point me (if you can) to the most likely setp I have
errored on if possible.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Need Help - boot fails - This cause?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 07:46:54PM -0400, scrat wrote:
I think I may have found the error of my ways
I'm sorry, I disagree.
I am building for i686
When reviewing my build process logs I found this under Chapter 6.16
GCC-4.5.2...
When doing the compile test ie echo main(){} dummy.c...etc.
From the book:
Next, verify that the new linker is being used with the correct search
paths:
grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
If everything is working correctly, there should be no errors, and the
output of the last command (allowing for platform-specific target
triplets) will be:
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/local/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib);
Here is what I have:
SEARCH_DIR(/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib);
SEARCH_DIR(/lib)
So, on the face of it, libraries in /usr/local/lib will not be
found. But, your problem is a failure to boot - the kernel does not
link to libraries.
The messages you saw on the screen when trying to boot are only
really helpful if you can boot a working kernel on the same machine,
AND if it runs slowly enough for you to be able to read what
happens. Unfortunately, modern desktop machines are probably too
quick for that. The messages don't usually make it into the logs,
so we can't look at logs and hazard a guess at what should come next.
Somebody implied a video problem - that sounds plausible.
You were also advised to avoid modules - in fact, for some things
such as network adaptors (wired ethernet) modules are usually no
problem. The big issues are booting without an initrd (most distros
use intirds, LFS doesn't), and supporting your hardware - as well as
the obvious build in ext4 or whatever you use and enable the
correct [ SATA ] drivers(s) for your chipset(s) I suppose we should
add if in doubt, keep the video simple.
kms is a wonderful thing when it works, but a bit of a beast to set
up in some situations, and occasionally liable to break across
kernel upgrades on some hardware (particularly, intel). So, if you
are using it, I suggest that you build an alternative kernel without
it, and use that to help identify where your problem lies. Equally,
even just using a framebuffer might cause problems (on my new
server, I had to fiddle with grub.conf to get a non-blank screen,
and I eventually switched to, I think, vesdafb from radeonfb - on
earlier kernels with my previosu hardware, the framebuffer had worked
fine without specifying anything odd to grub).
I think you said that you had used this config already on your host
system ? If so, is the host using an initrd [ if it is, the config
is probably not adequate for LFS ], and did you use the same version
of the kernel ? Occasionally, things break in newer kernels [ hmm -
if you are already running a *newer* kernel on the host, use the
same version in the new system, don't go back to an older kernel
just because it is in the book ].
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: Need Help - boot fails - This cause?
On 09/25/2011 08:51 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 07:46:54PM -0400, scrat wrote:
I think I may have found the error of my ways
I'm sorry, I disagree.
OK I've been completely wrong before ;)
I am building for i686
When reviewing my build process logs I found this under Chapter 6.16
GCC-4.5.2...
When doing the compile test ie echo main(){} dummy.c...etc.
From the book:
Next, verify that the new linker is being used with the correct search
paths:
grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g'
If everything is working correctly, there should be no errors, and the
output of the last command (allowing for platform-specific target
triplets) will be:
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/local/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib);
Here is what I have:
SEARCH_DIR(/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib)
SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib);
SEARCH_DIR(/lib)
So, on the face of it, libraries in /usr/local/lib will not be
found. But, your problem is a failure to boot - the kernel does not
link to libraries.
The messages you saw on the screen when trying to boot are only
really helpful if you can boot a working kernel on the same machine,
AND if it runs slowly enough for you to be able to read what
happens. Unfortunately, modern desktop machines are probably too
quick for that. The messages don't usually make it into the logs,
so we can't look at logs and hazard a guess at what should come next.
This is a five year old lapdog machine so it is not to beastky fast ;)
Somebody implied a video problem - that sounds plausible.
No I don't get a blank/black screen I just get a hard crash, the screen
never clears or blanks
You were also advised to avoid modules - in fact, for some things
such as network adaptors (wired ethernet) modules are usually no
problem. The big issues are booting without an initrd (most distros
use intirds, LFS doesn't), and supporting your hardware - as well as
the obvious build in ext4 or whatever you use and enable the
correct [ SATA ] drivers(s) for your chipset(s) I suppose we should
add if in doubt, keep the video simple.
I did use a kernel without modules. I recompiled the kernel without
modules as suggested.
kms is a wonderful thing when it works, but a bit of a beast to set
up in some situations, and occasionally liable to break across
kernel upgrades on some hardware (particularly, intel). So, if you
are using it, I suggest that you build an alternative kernel without
it, and use that to help identify where your problem lies. Equally,
even just using a framebuffer might cause problems (on my new
server, I had to fiddle with grub.conf to get a non-blank screen,
and I eventually switched to, I think, vesdafb from radeonfb - on
earlier kernels with my previosu hardware, the framebuffer had worked
fine without specifying anything odd to grub).
I am not doing anything to advanced as of now. I just want to see the
machine boot.
I'll mess up the kernel by adding sound kms etc later
First get it to boot then on to blfs and add/chqange the kernel params
as needed to get things functional is/was my plan.
I think you said that you had used this config already on your host
system ? If so, is the host using an initrd [ if it is, the config
is probably not adequate for LFS ], and did you use the same version
of the kernel ? Occasionally, things break in newer kernels [ hmm -
if you are already running a *newer* kernel on the host, use the
same version in the new system, don't go back to an older kernel
just because it is in the book ].
No, I did not use a config from a distro, I made the config file from
my own doing.(That's why it didn't work I suppose?)
I did a mrproper
Then make deflaultconfig or something like that
Then make menuconfig and looked over the config and eliminated a bunch
of stuff and added the proper sata drivers etc.
I have no framebuffer or kms configured in the kernel.
I then compiled a kernel that booted.
After which I changed the hard drive in the laptop ( the machine I built
the system on ) and then re-done the LFS as a new build.
When I got the the reboot stage it hung.
I used the same host system and the same partition system on both hard
drives.
I also scripted the first system and copied it to a usb thumb drive to
use again.
After setting up the new drive I used the scripts following the build
sequence to install on the newer/larger drive.
I have to manually do each step following the book. I built the scripts
by cutting and pasting each chapter into a script and adding a section
to untarball the source package and cd to the now source directory
Each script resides into a subdirectory.
The script when run unpacks the tarball cd to the unpacked directoty
and runs the pasted commands.
What I don't know is when does the kernel hand over booting to inittab etc.
My theory if not flawed is that some/all binaries are linked to the
/tools
Re: Need Help - boot fails - This cause?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:32:04PM -0400, scrat wrote: hmm, I didn't intend to still be awake at this time, really I didn't, but I'm nursing my current dekstop build scripts :-( This is a five year old lapdog machine so it is not to beastky fast ;) That is odd, because the log timestamp you quoted was something like 1.4 seconds after the kernel had started to boot. Somebody implied a video problem - that sounds plausible. No I don't get a blank/black screen I just get a hard crash, the screen never clears or blanks Next time you boot the host system, watch the messages to see what comes next in a successful boot. You were also advised to avoid modules - in fact, for some things such as network adaptors (wired ethernet) modules are usually no problem. The big issues are booting without an initrd (most distros use intirds, LFS doesn't), and supporting your hardware - as well as the obvious build in ext4 or whatever you use and enable the correct [ SATA ] drivers(s) for your chipset(s) I suppose we should add if in doubt, keep the video simple. I did use a kernel without modules. I recompiled the kernel without modules as suggested. Sounds good kms is a wonderful thing when it works, but a bit of a beast to set up in some situations, and occasionally liable to break across kernel upgrades on some hardware (particularly, intel). So, if you are using it, I suggest that you build an alternative kernel without it, and use that to help identify where your problem lies. Equally, even just using a framebuffer might cause problems (on my new server, I had to fiddle with grub.conf to get a non-blank screen, and I eventually switched to, I think, vesdafb from radeonfb - on earlier kernels with my previosu hardware, the framebuffer had worked fine without specifying anything odd to grub). I am not doing anything to advanced as of now. I just want to see the machine boot. I'll mess up the kernel by adding sound kms etc later First get it to boot then on to blfs and add/chqange the kernel params as needed to get things functional is/was my plan. Sounds good. I think you said that you had used this config already on your host system ? If so, is the host using an initrd [ if it is, the config is probably not adequate for LFS ], and did you use the same version of the kernel ? Occasionally, things break in newer kernels [ hmm - if you are already running a *newer* kernel on the host, use the same version in the new system, don't go back to an older kernel just because it is in the book ]. No, I did not use a config from a distro, I made the config file from my own doing.(That's why it didn't work I suppose?) I did a mrproper Then make deflaultconfig or something like that Then make menuconfig and looked over the config and eliminated a bunch of stuff and added the proper sata drivers etc. I have no framebuffer or kms configured in the kernel. I then compiled a kernel that booted. After which I changed the hard drive in the laptop ( the machine I built the system on ) and then re-done the LFS as a new build. When I got the the reboot stage it hung. I'm lost here (probably because it is late) - you've used the same host to build LFS twice, first on the old disk, and then on the new disk ? I used the same host system and the same partition system on both hard drives. I also scripted the first system and copied it to a usb thumb drive to use again. After setting up the new drive I used the scripts following the build sequence to install on the newer/larger drive. I have to manually do each step following the book. I built the scripts by cutting and pasting each chapter into a script and adding a section to untarball the source package and cd to the now source directory Each script resides into a subdirectory. The script when run unpacks the tarball cd to the unpacked directoty and runs the pasted commands. The above sounds sensible, but the reality is that scripting makes it very easy to miss errors. OTOH, if you are manually running each step, any errors ought to be apparent to you. What I don't know is when does the kernel hand over booting to inittab etc. My theory if not flawed is that some/all binaries are linked to the /tools directory, and since /tools has beened removed it hangs. Although I could be completely wrong about this. It should be simple for you to test this theory - take a program from each package (starting with /sbin/init) and use ldd to see what it links to. If the program you picked turns out to be a shell script, try a different program from the same package (see chapter 6, I think, for what gets installed in each package ? - I don't have a graphical browser on my current desktop). If /sbin/init is linked to /tools, I would expect to see a meaningful error message, but who knows. If /sbin/init is NOT linked to /tools
Re: Kernel Panic Help
bsquared wrote: Hello, Can anyone recommend some resources for troubleshooting a kernel panic. I have been built LFS 6.8 on a USB stick, and moved it to a disk partition using 'dd'. I modified the grub.cfg file and rebooted. Then got a kernel panic. Doh! I forgot that I changed the root parameter in grub.cfg to use UUID. Thanks for the quick replies. -Brian -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Kernel Panic Help
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, bsquared bwcod...@gmail.com wrote: bsquared wrote: Hello, Can anyone recommend some resources for troubleshooting a kernel panic. I have been built LFS 6.8 on a USB stick, and moved it to a disk partition using 'dd'. I modified the grub.cfg file and rebooted. Then got a kernel panic. Doh! I forgot that I changed the root parameter in grub.cfg to use UUID. Thanks for the quick replies. -Brian -- grub may understand uuid, but the root= line does not. (at least without building a initrd with a bash script inside that does some magic) -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) -- Location: British Columbia, Canada Timezone: PST (-8) Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
