Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 21:54 +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: (6). While still in $LFS/sources/gcc-build, I ran ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib; And this is where I found it confusing, ../usr/bin/cpp == $LFS/sources/usr/bin/cpp; but /usr/bin/cpp isn't found in $LFS/sources. It's found is $LFS/usr/bin/cpp; I thought that ln was supposed to create a link to an existing file whether using an absolute or a relative path; Basically, ln -s creates a special kind of file (termed a symbolic link, soft link, or just symlink) containing the string you passed in to it - you can actually see it in the file size of the symlink (it should be 14 bytes, for ../usr/bin/cpp). That string is only interpreted when someone actually tries to read the symlink, at which point a relative path is interpreted as relative to the directory containing the symlink. It has nothing to do with the directory you happened to be in at the time the symlink was created. And it's entirely possible for that symlink to point to a file or directory that doesn't exist - e.g if the target file is removed, or if it never existed in the first place. Also, note that I refer to symlinks only here. Running ln without the -s results in a different type of link, usually called a hard link. And none of what I've said applies to hard links - they're completely different from symlinks in almost every way. 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] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Simon Geard delga...@ihug.co.nz wrote: On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 21:54 +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: (6). While still in $LFS/sources/gcc-build, I ran ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib; And this is where I found it confusing, ../usr/bin/cpp == $LFS/sources/usr/bin/cpp; but /usr/bin/cpp isn't found in $LFS/sources. It's found is $LFS/usr/bin/cpp; I thought that ln was supposed to create a link to an existing file whether using an absolute or a relative path; Basically, ln -s creates a special kind of file (termed a symbolic link, soft link, or just symlink) containing the string you passed in to it - you can actually see it in the file size of the symlink (it should be 14 bytes, for ../usr/bin/cpp). That string is only interpreted when someone actually tries to read the symlink, at which point a relative path is interpreted as relative to the directory containing the symlink. It has nothing to do with the directory you happened to be in at the time the symlink was created. And it's entirely possible for that symlink to point to a file or directory that doesn't exist - e.g if the target file is removed, or if it never existed in the first place. Also, note that I refer to symlinks only here. Running ln without the -s results in a different type of link, usually called a hard link. And none of what I've said applies to hard links - they're completely different from symlinks in almost every way. Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page It's all clear as day now. Thanks for the explanation. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:50 +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: So in other words, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib' and 'ln -sv /usr/bin/cpp /lib' are equivalent? Not quite, and the difference can be seen when you look at the link *outside* the chroot environment (i.e where the filesystem is mounted to /mnt/lfs). The /lib directory becomes /mnt/lfs/lib, and so the first link now expands to /mnt/lfs/usr/bin/cpp. However, the second link is an absolute path, and so still points to /usr/bin/cpp - not to the file it was intended to point at. 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] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
Here's what I did to build gcc: (1). Extracted the gcc archive within the $LFS/sources directory; (2). cd'd into gcc-4.6.2; (3). Ran the instructions from 6.17.1. Installation of GCC; (4). Created $LFS/sources/gcc-build and cd'd into it; (5). Configured and compiled gcc; (6). While still in $LFS/sources/gcc-build, I ran ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib; And this is where I found it confusing, ../usr/bin/cpp == $LFS/sources/usr/bin/cpp; but /usr/bin/cpp isn't found in $LFS/sources. It's found is $LFS/usr/bin/cpp; I thought that ln was supposed to create a link to an existing file whether using an absolute or a relative path; I hope I'm making sense here. Anyway, thanks a lot to all those who responded to my query. I reckon it'll make more sense as I progress through the book. Alexander Kapshuk. On 03/21/2012 10:07 AM, Simon Geard wrote: On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:50 +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: So in other words, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib' and 'ln -sv /usr/bin/cpp /lib' are equivalent? Not quite, and the difference can be seen when you look at the link *outside* the chroot environment (i.e where the filesystem is mounted to /mnt/lfs). The /lib directory becomes /mnt/lfs/lib, and so the first link now expands to /mnt/lfs/usr/bin/cpp. However, the second link is an absolute path, and so still points to /usr/bin/cpp - not to the file it was intended to point at. Simon. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:54:18PM +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: (6). While still in $LFS/sources/gcc-build, I ran ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib; And this is where I found it confusing, ../usr/bin/cpp == $LFS/sources/usr/bin/cpp; but /usr/bin/cpp isn't found in $LFS/sources. It's found is $LFS/usr/bin/cpp; I thought that ln was supposed to create a link to an existing file whether using an absolute or a relative path; I hope I'm making sense here. The 'ln' command has many different ways of being invoked (see 'man ln'). In this case, ../usr/bin/ is relative to /lib/ so we create /lib/cpp as a symlink to /usr/bin/cpp. Similarly, the next instruction creates a symlink to /usr/bin/gcc called /usr/bin/cc. 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] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
Got it. Thanks. It's relative to /lib, not $LFS/sources/gcc-build as I had thought initially. I'll have another look at ln(1). On 03/21/2012 10:25 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:54:18PM +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: (6). While still in $LFS/sources/gcc-build, I ran ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib; And this is where I found it confusing, ../usr/bin/cpp == $LFS/sources/usr/bin/cpp; but /usr/bin/cpp isn't found in $LFS/sources. It's found is $LFS/usr/bin/cpp; I thought that ln was supposed to create a link to an existing file whether using an absolute or a relative path; I hope I'm making sense here. The 'ln' command has many different ways of being invoked (see 'man ln'). In this case, ../usr/bin/ is relative to /lib/ so we create /lib/cpp as a symlink to /usr/bin/cpp. Similarly, the next instruction creates a symlink to /usr/bin/gcc called /usr/bin/cc. ĸen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
While working on '6.17.1. Installation of GCC', I created and cd'd into '/sources/gcc-build'. One of the instructions suggests creating this symlink, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib'. I assumed that I was supposed to run the command line while still in '/sources/gcc-build'. If that is the case, shouldn't the command line be 'ln -sv ../../usr/bin/cpp'? Thanks. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Alexander Kapshuk alexander.kaps...@gmail.com wrote: While working on '6.17.1. Installation of GCC', I created and cd'd into '/sources/gcc-build'. One of the instructions suggests creating this symlink, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib'. I assumed that I was supposed to run the command line while still in '/sources/gcc-build'. If that is the case, shouldn't the command line be 'ln -sv ../../usr/bin/cpp'? When the ln command is given two paths, the current directory does not affect the result. The current directory only has an affect when there is only one path passed to the command. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rick Shelton rick.shel...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Alexander Kapshuk alexander.kaps...@gmail.com wrote: While working on '6.17.1. Installation of GCC', I created and cd'd into '/sources/gcc-build'. One of the instructions suggests creating this symlink, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib'. I assumed that I was supposed to run the command line while still in '/sources/gcc-build'. If that is the case, shouldn't the command line be 'ln -sv ../../usr/bin/cpp'? When the ln command is given two paths, the current directory does not affect the result. The current directory only has an affect when there is only one path passed to the command. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page So in other words, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib' and 'ln -sv /usr/bin/cpp /lib' are equivalent? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
Alexander Kapshuk wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rick Shelton rick.shel...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Alexander Kapshuk alexander.kaps...@gmail.com wrote: While working on '6.17.1. Installation of GCC', I created and cd'd into '/sources/gcc-build'. One of the instructions suggests creating this symlink, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib'. I assumed that I was supposed to run the command line while still in '/sources/gcc-build'. If that is the case, shouldn't the command line be 'ln -sv ../../usr/bin/cpp'? When the ln command is given two paths, the current directory does not affect the result. The current directory only has an affect when there is only one path passed to the command. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page So in other words, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib' and 'ln -sv /usr/bin/cpp /lib' are equivalent? A general practice is for symbolic links to be relative. If you copy a directory tree, relative paths stay relative. -- 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] ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:55:28 + Alexander Kapshuk alexander.kaps...@gmail.com wrote: So in other words, 'ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib' and 'ln -sv /usr/bin/cpp /lib' are equivalent? ln -sv ../usr/bin/cpp /lib is a relative symbolic link. ln -sv /usr/bin/cpp /lib is an absolute symbolic link. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: ln
Clemens Haupt wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 12:30, you wrote: man bash Danke! When the lfs partition is mounted, all ln -s are here again Where is that stored? Kind regards Clemens I don't know what you mean. Where is what stored? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Problem in running ln -s $LFS/tools /
On 6/28/05, Stephen Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew, snip # chown lfs $LFS/sources chown: cannot access `/sources': No such file or directory I'm held here again. Any advice? When you su you load a new environment, and your $LFS variable is lost, so the chown is attempting to access /sources, instead of /mnt/lfs/sources. do a export LFS=/mnt/lfs and run the chown again. -- - Steve Crosby -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Problem in running ln -s $LFS/tools /
Hi Steve, Tks for your advice. - snip - When you su you load a new environment, and your $LFS variable is lost, so the chown is attempting to access /sources, instead of /mnt/lfs/sources. do a export LFS=/mnt/lfs and run the chown again. Continued proceeding as follows; # export LFS=/mnt/lfs # chown lfs $LFS/tools # chown lfs $LFS/sources both went through without complaint # su - lfs -bash-3.00$ -bash-3.00$ cat ~/.bash_profile EOF exec env -i HOME=$HOME TERM=$TERM PS1='\u:\w\$ ' /bin/bash EOF -bash-3.00$ cat ~/.bashrc EOF set +h umash 022 lFS=/mnt/lfs LC_ALL=POSIX PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL PATH EOF -bash-3.00$ source ~/.bash_profile bash: umash: command not found lfs:~$ Up to here I have no idea whether I have committed any mistake because no indication of success. What is bash: umash: command not found? Is it a WARNING? B.R. Stephen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Problem in running ln -s $LFS/tools /
On 6/28/05, Stephen Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip bash: umash: command not found lfs:~$ Up to here I have no idea whether I have committed any mistake because no indication of success. What is bash: umash: command not found? Is it a WARNING? You've made a typo - that should be umask, not umash. When you run the source command, bash is reporting that it cannot find any command called umash. -- - Steve Crosby -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Problem in running ln -s $LFS/tools /
Hi Steve, What is bash: umash: command not found? Is it a WARNING? You've made a typo - that should be umask, not umash. When you run the source command, bash is reporting that it cannot find any command called umash. I re-checked the printout on Konsole; ... . -bash-3.00$ cat ~/.bash_profile EOF exec env -i HOME=$HOME TERM=$TERM PS1='\u:\w\$ ' /bin/bash EOF -bash-3.00$ cat ~/.bashrc EOF set +h umash 022 lFS=/mnt/lfs LC_ALL=POSIX PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL PATH EOF -bash-3.00$ source ~/.bash_profile bash: umash: command not found lfs:~$ It was indicated bash: umash: command not found not 'umask' Continued on 5. Constructing a Temporary System http://www.sg.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.0/chapter05/chapter05.html AND 5.2. Host System Requirements http://www.sg.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.0/chapter05/hostreqs.html lfs:~$ echo $LFS No printout lfs:~$ export LFS=/mnt/lfs lfs:~$ echo $LFS /mnt/lfs lfs:~$ cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.11-1.35_FC3 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22)) #1 Mon Jun 13 00:52:08 EDT 2005 lfs:~$ Is it OK? Can I continue further? TIA B.R. Stephen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Problem in running ln -s $LFS/tools /
Hi Kevin, Tks for your advice. - snip - Well, it is supposed to be umask not umash. cat ~/.bashrc EOF set +h umask 022 LFS=/mnt/lfs LC_ALL=POSIX PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL PATH EOF Ah, I realize that I made a typing mistake on umask I did it again as follows; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# su - lfs bash: umash: command not found lfs:~$ cat ~/.bashrc EOF set +h umask 022 (typing the correct word) LFS=/mnt/lfs LC_ALL=POSIX PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL PATH EOF lfs:~$ source ~/.bash_profile lfs:~$ echo $LFS /mnt/lfs lfs:~$ cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.11-1.35_FC3 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22)) #1 Mon Jun 13 00:52:08 EDT 2005 lfs:~$ Before proceeding further, how can I check I have committed no mistake in previous steps. TIA B.R. Stephen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Problem in running ln -s $LFS/tools /
Hi Kevin, Tks for your advice. - snip - Well, it is supposed to be umask not umash. cat ~/.bashrc EOF set +h umask 022 LFS=/mnt/lfs LC_ALL=POSIX PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL PATH EOF Ah, I realize that I made a typing mistake on umask I did it again as follows; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# su - lfs bash: umash: command not found lfs:~$ cat ~/.bashrc EOF set +h umask 022 (typing the correct word) LFS=/mnt/lfs LC_ALL=POSIX PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin export LFS LC_ALL PATH EOF lfs:~$ source ~/.bash_profile lfs:~$ echo $LFS /mnt/lfs lfs:~$ cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.11-1.35_FC3 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22)) #1 Mon Jun 13 00:52:08 EDT 2005 lfs:~$ Before proceeding further, how can I check I have committed no mistake in previous steps. TIA B.R. Stephen Well, since you aren't very far yet and that's the only configuration file you've really had to make, as long as everything is successfully mounted, you should be good so far since all you've done so far is make/mount the partitions, download packages, create the tools dir, and add a new user and set up the user's environment. Just make sure to watch what you're typing and you might just want to copy and paste long segments, especially when making configuration files. -- Kevin M. Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
