Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-12 Thread Alain Toussaint
Le mercredi 04 avril 2018 à 18:04 +0200, Pierre Labastie a écrit : > On 04/04/2018 17:30, Alain Toussaint wrote: > > > > > > > But I'd like to help debug this problem. Could you please, in a shell > > > > > where > > > > > building manually works, run: > > > > > $ source /envars.conf > > > > > >

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread Alain Toussaint
Le mercredi 04 avril 2018 à 18:04 +0200, Pierre Labastie a écrit : > On 04/04/2018 17:30, Alain Toussaint wrote: > > > > > > > But I'd like to help debug this problem. Could you please, in a shell > > > > > where > > > > > building manually works, run: > > > > > $ source /envars.conf > > > > > >

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread Pierre Labastie
On 04/04/2018 17:30, Alain Toussaint wrote: > But I'd like to help debug this problem. Could you please, in a shell where building manually works, run: $ source /envars.conf then build manually again, and report if it still works or not? Pierre >> >> Yes, I'm on

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread Alain Toussaint
> What I now do, is modify the LFS book's chapter on gcc and add all the > optional languages apart from ADA, as I have not found a package that I > use that needs it.  Then I allow jhalfs to run and install LFS. At this time, I'm going straight by the book (i.e. gcc built for C/C++). haven't bu

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread Alain Toussaint
> > > But I'd like to help debug this problem. Could you please, in a shell > > > where > > > building manually works, run: > > > $ source /envars.conf > > > > > > then build manually again, and report if it still works or not? > > > > > > Pierre > > Yes, I'm on it. I got the results almost i

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread Alain Toussaint
> Resent without the "SPAM" header, sorry for the first one. I do wonder what would be needed from my end beside SPF and DKIM not to be labelled spam. I know and had DMARC for a brief time but it would break up mailing list resend. > > > > I really do not see which envar could be set, which co

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread me
> Le mercredi 04 avril 2018 à 00:44 +0100, Ken Moffat a écrit : >> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:46:49PM -0400, Alain Toussaint wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I successfully built llvm by hand after trying to do so with ALFS-svn >> checkout on the Sunday 1st >> > of >> > April with both LFS and BLFS

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-04 Thread Pierre Labastie
Resent without the "SPAM" header, sorry for the first one. On 04/04/2018 09:27, Pierre Labastie wrote: > On 04/04/2018 01:48, Alain Toussaint wrote: >> Le mercredi 04 avril 2018 à 00:44 +0100, Ken Moffat a écrit : >>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:46:49PM -0400, Alain Toussaint wrote: Hello, >>>

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-03 Thread Alain Toussaint
Le mercredi 04 avril 2018 à 00:44 +0100, Ken Moffat a écrit : > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:46:49PM -0400, Alain Toussaint wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I successfully built llvm by hand after trying to do so with ALFS-svn > > checkout on the Sunday 1st > > of > > April with both LFS and BLFS checked

Re: [blfs-dev] ALFS vs hand-built llvm-6

2018-04-03 Thread Ken Moffat
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:46:49PM -0400, Alain Toussaint wrote: > Hello, > > I successfully built llvm by hand after trying to do so with ALFS-svn > checkout on the Sunday 1st of > April with both LFS and BLFS checked out on the same date. The ALFS logs for > llvm show this issue: > > In file