Hi all,
Well, if have a little bit different question.
As I dont want to install any development tools
in chapter 6 final LFS to keep the rootfs small for embedded purpose,
is it okay to always use the /tools toolchain in
temp chroot system for e.g. BLFS creation??
l also need to change the
Hi all,
as asked before, why dont we devide chapter 6
packages into -- essential / devel (optional) packages??
The devel packages could be a sub chapter of LFS
chap 6 and marked as optional install.
packages e.g. gcc, perl ...
Doing so we can use the temp self hosted chroot
chap 5
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:17:02PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
Well, if have a little bit different question.
You have a question that you cross posted to many lists. Read the FAQ,
search the mail archives, and stop cross posting.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
This could really lead to a clean target rootfs approach
without the need of any devel tools ...
Which would be completely against the stated goal of LFS.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 12/21/05 09:27 CST:
Sorry, that's speculative crap. You might just have to build with it
and see what the difference is.
I wouldn't mind doing the building and testing, as many times as I
will be in and out of the house doing X-mas shopping today. However
I
Hi,
Well, Archaic as subjected before
we could discuss that.
I think it is
absolutely not against the goal of LFS,
because pointing out how a sane working
system can be created has nothing to do
with any dev-tools installed.
Further more I would like to her
some comments from others on this
Ok we all know about that nice hint, but
my intend is also educational as well.
Stating out what is essential and what is
optional is really of technical nature.
The problem for me was many month ago to
get to know why we do include this pack
besides the fact of dependency.
A sane system doesn
Feldmeier Bernd wrote these words on 12/21/05 09:44 CST:
absolutely not against the goal of LFS,
because pointing out how a sane working
system can be created has nothing to do
with any dev-tools installed.
A sane working system. Is this what you call a bare-bones
just-finished LFS build
LFS is source code based distro. So compilers are required. You can't
compare it to binary distros.
I would suggest you take what you like from LFS and Gregs DIY. Develop
a build environment and create what ever kind of binary image you
want. But you really shouldn't demand others to do all the
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:06:53 +0100
Feldmeier Bernd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you call this that way ok.
But marking some packs as optional
that is really educational in my mind.
The user can decide wether to include that
not essential stuff like devel-packs ...
Bernd,
We've all
Archaic wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:17:02PM +0100, Feldmeier Bernd wrote:
Well, if have a little bit different question.
You have a question that you cross posted to many lists. Read the FAQ,
search the mail archives, and stop cross posting.
I generally agree with all the comments
Richard A Downing wrote:
Bernd,
We've all tried to be friendly, but you are abusing our patience.
WILL YOU FOR GOTTS SAKE STOP TOP POSTING and learn how to trim your
quotes.
In addition, Bernd, please find an email client that does whatever is
necessary to allow sane clients to thread
Archaic Wrote:
Is it a warning or does it not run the tests? Or do the tests run and
fail?
They run anyhow... execscript for example simply has this in it:
if [ $UID -eq 0 ]; then
echo execscript: the test suite should not be run as root 2
fi
I don't know how running as root skews
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
I don't know how running as root skews the results, though. I know
the tests all pass as-is.
It's possible that they do something that's maybe-unsafe when they get
run as root. I don't know for sure, though; I haven't looked into it at
all. Just saying that this is one
I posted a solution in lfs-support. Here is it
In my testing with Cross-LFS, I have found that this works
echo dummy1:x:1000: /etc/group
echo dummy:x:1000:1000:::/bin/bash /etc/passwd
cd tests
su dummy -c sh run-all
sed -i '/dummy/d' /etc/passwd /etc/group
rm /tmp/*
--
--
[EMAIL
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:13:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Do we have anyone on the list that has started to look at this?
Thomas Pegg has a general structure up already. He just mentioned it in
livecd (don't have the email handy to provide a link, though).
--
Archaic
Want control,
http://pastebin.com/474591
2nd pass of gcc 4.0.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ echo 'main(){}' dummy.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ cc dummy.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/lfs/tools $ readelf -l a.out | grep ': /tools'
[Requesting program interpreter:
17 matches
Mail list logo
