Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On 1 August 2017 at 15:45, William Harrington wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:25:44 +1200 > Kevin Buckley wrote: > >> which appears to suggest an extra GCC build AFTER the MultiLib Glibc > > Depends if you want GCC linked to temp GLIBC or not. Your choice. Frankly, > you want GCC linked to the final GLIBC. > Yes: of course. Can see that now. Thanks for pointing that out agaain. ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:25:44 +1200 Kevin Buckley wrote: > which appears to suggest an extra GCC build AFTER the MultiLib Glibc Depends if you want GCC linked to temp GLIBC or not. Your choice. Frankly, you want GCC linked to the final GLIBC. In any instance you want the binutils, then gcc (stop here if you only want to build a kernel), then glibc, then gcc. Sincerely, William Harrington ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On 22 July 2017 at 14:30, DJ Lucas wrote: > Oh, I missed the first message to LFS-DevI have original patch which > should match, or at least be close to 8.0. > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/LFS-Multilib-20170225.diff Just to say that that patch applied cleanly to the 8.0 book but left a missing stanza in packages.ent for the ISL package, that produced a small amount of noise when rendering the patched 8.0 book sources. I grabbed the stanza from the current (commit 24c892dd) Git's packages.ent, vis http://isl.gforge.inria.fr/isl-&isl-version;.tar.xz";> http://isl.gforge.inria.fr";> and added that in and it all then rendered without issue. Would also add that I have since followed the budiling of the first six parts of your "Chapter 10", so === 10. Adding multilib to an existing system Multilib Introduction Binutils-2.27 Multilib (temp) GCC-6.3.0 Multilib (temp) Glibc-2.25 32-bit (temp) Binutils-2.27 Multilib GCC-6.3.0 Multilib Glibc-2.25 Multilib === (and I also added in the ISL source to that last GCC) and that my Xen build now gets a lot further, although because the current Xen builds try to download from the interweb thing (yes, really: no self contained source tarball!), I didn't get all the way through, but it's looking very promising. I also note that your build order is slightly different to William's origunal suggestion >> You can do all this in >> your running system. But this order: binutils with multilib capability >> and 64bit bfd, GCC with multilib support, then GLIBC, and then GCC. which appears to suggest an extra GCC build AFTER the MultiLib Glibc Is that necessary ? Will keep you posted: thanks again, Kevin ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On 22 July 2017 at 14:30, DJ Lucas wrote: > > Oh, I missed the first message to LFS-DevI have original patch which > should match, or at least be close to 8.0. > > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/LFS-Multilib-20170225.diff Bingo! I was going to ask if you had a NOCHUNKS rendering of "your Book", that I could grab in one go, up somwhere but the patch will allow me to create my own NOCHUNKS rendering . Cheers, Kevin ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On 07/21/2017 12:50 AM, Kevin Buckley wrote: On 21 July 2017 at 01:28, William Harrington wrote: Well for one LFS != CLFS. We have a different release schedule. Also, can count the active devs on half a hand. My apologies William, I was aware of your involvment in CLFS (and in *FS in general, come to that) but just went with the three names I could see on the 1st page of the book, although I had to go a long way back into the LFS lists to find the addresses that failed to deliver so no great surprise ! Clearly the CLFS list would have been a better starting point. I'm also aware that LFS != CLFS. I still have an archived email from around 2008 or 09 where someone was as pains to point that out ! I was kind of writing more in hope that anything else but I guess the twain still have never met as yet. We are closer to LFS development as the book versions are concerned. Stable releases will not at all match LFS. They release multiple times a year. We release when the stars, planets and moons are all aligned. I guess I'll pick the closest moon/planet/star then, and follow that! 2) If I already have a 64-bit LFS/BLFS 8.0 system, can I just retro-fit the 32-bit libs (so as to give what I think is then a MultiLib system) using the 64-bit (Chapter 6) toolchain ? Or do I have to go and build a MultiLib compiler in the "Chapter 5" stage You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 32-bit, so you can continue with /lib /usr/lib and use /lib32 /usr/lib32 for your 32 bit components I'm thinking that you meant to write "You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 64-bit, " there, or else it doesn't quite hang together ? or move every library that is 64-bit to /lib64 /usr/lib64 and then update all of the pkg-config files and rebuild binutils with multilib and 64bit bfd support, gcc with multilib support, and then glibc. You can do all this in your running system. But this order: binutils with multilib capability and 64bit bfd, GCC with multilib support, then GLIBC, and then GCC. OK. This sounds promising. Having said that, we have a NetBSD/PkgSrc Dom0 box here at work and it's not clear that the Xen there were any 32-bit bits during the build. although I need to check on that because we're not sure. You will have to decide what layout you want. Can refer to this for help: https://www.williamfeely.info/wiki/Lfs-multilib/blfs uses lib32 for 32bit. if ya going to use lib for 32-bit and lib64 for 64-bit then refer to CLFS. I'd most likely go the lib32 route for your 32-bit components. See below, I went through this exercise around 8.0's release. Thanks for the feedback. As to Roger's I think it would be great if someone created a hint on exactly how to do this. I would like to know how to build wine on a BLFS 64-bit system. I'll make sure I post my notes once I have things working. I have a set of XML sources for LFS/BLFS/CLFS now and can build a rendered Boook from them, so the original plan (you may possibly recall that I am a PkgUser builder) was to create a set of extra sections that documented what I had done to get a Xen environment up and running. and put it up somwhere. Let's see where I can get to: cheers again for the info, Kevin Kevin, nice to see you on list. FYI, I attempted to do this in LFS book form a few months ago...might be of use, might be complete waste. It is pretty close to William's suggestion in LFS book form (I have an extra build of binutils, however, and I forget why...possibly just separation). It is not CLFS. I didn't make any attempt to have anything more than the necessary 32bit libs from LFS to go on and build the necessary 32bit xorg libs for TeamViewer/wine. It *is* out of date and was last tested against LFS-8.0. I tried to shoehorn in the most recent glibc, binutils, and gcc changes in my chapter 10 for you real quick, but it is yet untested with current versions. Here is a rendered book with additional chapter 10: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/lfs-systemd-multilib/ Chapter 10 would be no different for SysV except maybe the eudev libraries instead of systemd. If that is of any use, the patch for LFS-SVN is here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/multilib.diff Anybody can feel free to use all, any, or none of it. :-) HTH --DJ ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On Fri, July 21, 2017 05:50, Kevin Buckley wrote: > On 21 July 2017 at 01:28, William Harrington > wrote: > >> >> You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 32-bit, so you can continue >> with >> /lib /usr/lib and use /lib32 /usr/lib32 for your 32 bit components > > > I'm thinking that you meant to write > > "You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 64-bit, " > > there, or else it doesn't quite hang together ? > Yes 64-bit for /lib /usr/lib not 32-bit. >> or move >> every library that is 64-bit to /lib64 /usr/lib64 and then update all of >> the pkg-config files and rebuild binutils with multilib and 64bit bfd >> support, gcc with multilib support, and then glibc. > >> You can do all this in >> your running system. But this order: binutils with multilib capability >> and >> 64bit bfd, GCC with multilib support, then GLIBC, and then GCC. > > OK. This sounds promising. > I finally tracked down a user at lfs-suport a couple of years ago that needed help and was looking for the guide Armin has: http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2015-January/048426.html Lots of resources at his github site elkrejzi. Sincerely, William Harrington ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On 21 July 2017 at 01:28, William Harrington wrote: > Well for one LFS != CLFS. We have a different release schedule. Also, can > count the active devs on half a hand. My apologies William, I was aware of your involvment in CLFS (and in *FS in general, come to that) but just went with the three names I could see on the 1st page of the book, although I had to go a long way back into the LFS lists to find the addresses that failed to deliver so no great surprise ! Clearly the CLFS list would have been a better starting point. I'm also aware that LFS != CLFS. I still have an archived email from around 2008 or 09 where someone was as pains to point that out ! I was kind of writing more in hope that anything else but I guess the twain still have never met as yet. > We are closer to LFS development as the book versions are concerned. > Stable releases will not at all match LFS. They release multiple times a > year. We release when the stars, planets and moons are all aligned. I guess I'll pick the closest moon/planet/star then, and follow that! > >> 2) If I already have a 64-bit LFS/BLFS 8.0 system, can I just retro-fit >> the 32-bit libs (so as to give what I think is then a MultiLib >> system) >> using the 64-bit (Chapter 6) toolchain ? >> Or do I have to go and build a MultiLib compiler in the "Chapter 5" >> stage > > You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 32-bit, so you can continue with > /lib /usr/lib and use /lib32 /usr/lib32 for your 32 bit components I'm thinking that you meant to write "You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 64-bit, " there, or else it doesn't quite hang together ? > or move > every library that is 64-bit to /lib64 /usr/lib64 and then update all of > the pkg-config files and rebuild binutils with multilib and 64bit bfd > support, gcc with multilib support, and then glibc. > You can do all this in > your running system. But this order: binutils with multilib capability and > 64bit bfd, GCC with multilib support, then GLIBC, and then GCC. OK. This sounds promising. Having said that, we have a NetBSD/PkgSrc Dom0 box here at work and it's not clear that the Xen there were any 32-bit bits during the build. although I need to check on that because we're not sure. > You will have to decide what layout you want. Can refer to this for help: > https://www.williamfeely.info/wiki/Lfs-multilib/blfs uses lib32 for > 32bit. if ya going to use lib for 32-bit and lib64 for 64-bit then refer > to CLFS. > > I'd most likely go the lib32 route for your 32-bit components. Thanks for the feedback. As to Roger's > I think it would be great if someone created a hint on exactly how to > do this. I would like to know how to build wine on a BLFS 64-bit > system. I'll make sure I post my notes once I have things working. I have a set of XML sources for LFS/BLFS/CLFS now and can build a rendered Boook from them, so the original plan (you may possibly recall that I am a PkgUser builder) was to create a set of extra sections that documented what I had done to get a Xen environment up and running. and put it up somwhere. Let's see where I can get to: cheers again for the info, Kevin ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:28 AM, William Harrington wrote: > On Thu, July 20, 2017 00:08, Kevin Buckley wrote: > >> 2) If I already have a 64-bit LFS/BLFS 8.0 system, can I just retro-fit >> the 32-bit libs (so as to give what I think is then a MultiLib >> system) >> using the 64-bit (Chapter 6) toolchain ? > > You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 32-bit, so you can continue with > /lib /usr/lib and use /lib32 /usr/lib32 for your 32 bit components or move > every library that is 64-bit to /lib64 /usr/lib64 and then update all of > the pkg-config files and rebuild binutils with multilib and 64bit bfd > support, gcc with multilib support, and then glibc. You can do all this in > your running system. But this order: binutils with multilib capability and > 64bit bfd, GCC with multilib support, then GLIBC, and then GCC. > > You will have to decide what layout you want. Can refer to this for help: > https://www.williamfeely.info/wiki/Lfs-multilib/blfs uses lib32 for > 32bit. if ya going to use lib for 32-bit and lib64 for 64-bit then refer > to CLFS. I think it would be great if someone created a hint on exactly how to do this. I would like to know how to build wine on a BLFS 64-bit system. ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
Re: [Clfs-dev] Matching up CLFS snapshot versions with LFS/BLFS releases
On Thu, July 20, 2017 00:08, Kevin Buckley wrote: Well for one LFS != CLFS. We have a different release schedule. Also, can count the active devs on half a hand. > > > so nothing that suggests any direct correspondence with LFS/BLFS > release numbers, so, my questions are: > > 1) Are the any known CLFS "commits" that can be associated with the > "mainline" LFS/BLFS releases > Or do I just have to wade through them and find one that matches. > We are closer to LFS development as the book versions are concerned. Stable releases will not at all match LFS. They release multiple times a year. We release when the stars, planets and moons are all aligned. > 2) If I already have a 64-bit LFS/BLFS 8.0 system, can I just retro-fit > the 32-bit libs (so as to give what I think is then a MultiLib > system) > using the 64-bit (Chapter 6) toolchain ? > Or do I have to go and build a MultiLib compiler in the "Chapter 5" > stage You are probably using /lib /usr/lib for 32-bit, so you can continue with /lib /usr/lib and use /lib32 /usr/lib32 for your 32 bit components or move every library that is 64-bit to /lib64 /usr/lib64 and then update all of the pkg-config files and rebuild binutils with multilib and 64bit bfd support, gcc with multilib support, and then glibc. You can do all this in your running system. But this order: binutils with multilib capability and 64bit bfd, GCC with multilib support, then GLIBC, and then GCC. You will have to decide what layout you want. Can refer to this for help: https://www.williamfeely.info/wiki/Lfs-multilib/blfs uses lib32 for 32bit. if ya going to use lib for 32-bit and lib64 for 64-bit then refer to CLFS. I'd most likely go the lib32 route for your 32-bit components. Sincerely, William Harrington ___ Clfs-dev mailing list Clfs-dev@lists.clfs.org http://lists.clfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-clfs.org
