Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 09:35 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 00:36 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: What you are overlooking is that doing it my way comes with when it breaks, I get to keep all the pieces. What a curious thing to write in a SUPPORT forum of a LINUX distribution with the motto, YOUR DISTRO, YOUR RULES. Your distro, your rules - but going along with that, there's the unstated your rules, your problems. There's nothing wrong with exploring uncharted waters, but if you sail into the middle of here be dragons, you can't expect to stop and ask for directions... 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-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 19:11 -0400, x2...@lycos.com wrote: So Paul, what i really need to say is that if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces but maybe, more important, if it doesn't break, you still get to keep the pieces. Well yes, that's true. But then, LFS is a natural path for those of us who learn by taking things apart and trying to put them back together again. Having it still actually working afterwards was always a bonus... :) 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-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On 01/06/10 01:54, Bruce Dubbs wrote: See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44129 Many Bothans died to bring us this information. LOL Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.3/x/installing.html The xorg-server-1.2.0 in the make I get an error: collect2: ld returned 1 exit status, make [4] *** [Xorg] Error 1 make [4]: Leaving directory '/ xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' Thanks -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
On 1 June 2010 17:45, David Expósito david.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.3/x/installing.html The xorg-server-1.2.0 in the make I get an error: collect2: ld returned 1 exit status, make [4] *** [Xorg] Error 1 make [4]: Leaving directory '/ xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' Thanks -- Is there some reason why you aren't using the development book ? Most of the package versions in 6.3 are extremely old. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
forgives are these: make[4]: se sale del directorio `/xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86/doc' make[4]: se ingresa al directorio `/xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -DHAVE_XORG_CONFIG_H -DXF86PM -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -fno-strict-aliasing -D_BSD_SOURCE -DHAS_FCHOWN -DHAS_STICKY_DIR_BIT -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I../../include -I../../include -I../../Xext -I../../composite -I../../damageext -I../../xfixes -I../../Xi -I../../mi -I../../miext/shadow -I../../miext/damage -I../../render -I../../randr -I../../fb -g -O2 -o Xorg -rdynamic xorg.o ../../dix/libdix.la common/libinit.a loader/libloader.a libosandcommon.la rac/librac.a parser/libxf86config.a dixmods/libdixmods.la ../../composite/libcomposite.la ../../mi/libmi.la../../xfixes/ libxfixes.la ../../Xext/libXextbuiltin.la ../../render/librender.la../../randr/ librandr.la ../../damageext/libdamageext.la ../../miext/damage/libdamage.la../../miext/cw/ libcw.la ../../miext/shadow/libshadow.la ../../Xi/libXi.la ../../xkb/ libxkb.la ../../dix/libxpstubs.la ../../os/libos.la -ldl -lXfont -lXau -lfontenc -lXdmcp-lm -lrt dixmods/libxorgxkb.la -lrt gcc -DHAVE_XORG_CONFIG_H -DXF86PM -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -fno-strict-aliasing -D_BSD_SOURCE -DHAS_FCHOWN -DHAS_STICKY_DIR_BIT -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I../../include -I../../include -I../../Xext -I../../composite -I../../damageext -I../../xfixes -I../../Xi -I../../mi -I../../miext/shadow -I../../miext/damage -I../../render -I../../randr -I../../fb -g -O2 -o Xorg -rdynamic xorg.o ../../dix/.libs/libdix.a common/libinit.a loader/libloader.a ./.libs/libosandcommon.a rac/librac.a parser/libxf86config.a dixmods/.libs/libdixmods.a ../../composite/.libs/libcomposite.a ../../mi/.libs/libmi.a ../../xfixes/.libs/libxfixes.a ../../Xext/.libs/libXextbuiltin.a ../../render/.libs/librender.a ../../randr/.libs/librandr.a ../../damageext/.libs/libdamageext.a ../../miext/damage/.libs/libdamage.a ../../miext/cw/.libs/libcw.a ../../miext/shadow/.libs/libshadow.a ../../Xi/.libs/libXi.a ../../xkb/.libs/libxkb.a ../../dix/.libs/libxpstubs.a ../../os/.libs/libos.a -ldl /usr/lib/libXfont.so /usr/lib/libfreetype.so /usr/lib/libXau.so /usr/lib/libfontenc.so -lz /usr/lib/libXdmcp.so -lm dixmods/.libs/libxorgxkb.a -lrt /usr/lib/libXfont.so: undefined reference to `ft_isdigit' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[4]: *** [Xorg] Error 1 make[4]: se sale del directorio `/xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[3]: se sale del directorio `/xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 make[2]: se sale del directorio `/xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: se sale del directorio `/xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 2010/6/1 Rick Shelton rick.shel...@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, David Expósito david.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.3/x/installing.html The xorg-server-1.2.0 in the make I get an error: collect2: ld returned 1 exit status, make [4] *** [Xorg] Error 1 make [4]: Leaving directory '/ xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' Please include the 20 or so lines that precede the error notice. -- 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: Gnome desktop: unreadable characters
hi, thanks for your quick reply. i checked the fonts-paths and could not find anything odd about it, neither did the xorg.0.log complain about anything in combination with fonts. i ended up in reinstalling freetype2 and fontconfig, what finally solved the problem, although i have no explanation for this. hope this can help anyone else. thanks for your support! toby Am 01.06.2010 08:52, schrieb Ken Moffat: On 1 June 2010 07:16, Tobias Vogeltobias.vo...@linux.com wrote: hi, I followed the blfs-book carefully and so far, everything worked. I set up Gnome and GDM but after the first reboot, all characters were gone (see attached picture). Any ideas? thanks, Toby -- Missing fonts. Or, fonts somewhere that xorg can't find them. With both X (7.5) and (some of) gnome in /usr. my ttfs are in directories under /usr/share/fonts/. ISTR they used to go into /usr/lib/X11/fonts, in fact my xorg.conf still has archaic references to non-existent directories for old-style fonts there, which means my X log reports that the FontPath ends up empty - doesn't matter for me, fontconfig handles it. Anything interesting in your X or daemon logs ? Are you saying that it worked once, then failed after you rebooted? If so, what was different about the first time ? ĸen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
I have already compiled by the lfs 6.3 and wanted to install the graphical environment and end enterder a little more and then enpezar with the 6.6 but first I want to end this. thanks 2010/6/1 Ken Moffat zarniwhoo...@googlemail.com On 1 June 2010 17:45, David Expósito david.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.3/x/installing.html The xorg-server-1.2.0 in the make I get an error: collect2: ld returned 1 exit status, make [4] *** [Xorg] Error 1 make [4]: Leaving directory '/ xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86' Thanks -- Is there some reason why you aren't using the development book ? Most of the package versions in 6.3 are extremely old. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys! -- 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: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
On 6/1/10, David Expósito david.sa...@gmail.com wrote: /usr/lib/libXfont.so: undefined reference to `ft_isdigit' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status In newer versions of Freetype2, the ft_isdigit macro has been removed. When building libXfont-1.2.8 in ch. 23.8 Xorg-Libraries you were supposed to do: sed -i 's/(ft_isdigit/(isdigit/' src/FreeType/fttools.c Maybe you can rebuild libXfont and then resume. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
David Expósito wrote: Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment There is a separate list for blfs-support. Please use that for non-lfs issues. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
ok 2010/6/1 Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com David Expósito wrote: Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment There is a separate list for blfs-support. Please use that for non-lfs issues. -- 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
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
forgiveness and I noticed. thanks 2010/6/1 David Expósito david.sa...@gmail.com ok 2010/6/1 Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com David Expósito wrote: Hello I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window environment Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment There is a separate list for blfs-support. Please use that for non-lfs issues. -- 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
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
Others have said it: unless we can duplicate the problem somebody faces doing things slightly different, support can be hard to provide. As Ken wrote and I believe, most of your development team can be expected to stay pretty close to front-line developments. As seems indicated by the current situation, someone should adopt a QC role, and have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. In all this discussion nobody has yet made that claim. A point blank question then: who installed 6.6 flawlessly with exactly the package versions given in the Host System Requirements. i.e. gcc-3.0.1, linux-2.6.18? phase 2 -- building the system During this phase you would actually build the system as described in the LFS and BLFS books. The time that it would take to do this is dependent on the speed of your build-host as well as how much you are building. There is a very old aphorism in system development: plan to throw the first one away. Since the question seems to suggest nothing like this has been attempted in the past, my humble suggestion would be to build the first one by hand, going through the book package by package, not jhalfs. Get through all the packages, discovering and dealing with the inevitable glitches along the way. Get LFS running. See what it's like. It's surprizingly Spartan! You'll certainly want to install some BLFS packages to make the system livable. See how what you'll have satisfies your expectations. Then, since we all usually make some compromises the first time through, if you like what you've made and want to continue, tarball it up, put it away, and start over from scratch. Plan to make your second build as perfect as possible given what was learned the first time through. I'd estimate this time to be a couple weeks to a month, depending on how thorough your explorations are. The Host System requirements may indeed be too low for LFS 6.6, but I am reluctant to change them based on your input because you have made lots of changes. You claim your scripts encompass the book's commands, but I don't have the time or desire to check that, especially when we have an automated way to build. No, I don't expect you to--that's MY responsibility. But as I suggested above in reply to what Gerard wrote, I expect someone to have a reference system with exactly those minimum packages, and verify that such a system WILL built LFS flawlessly. Use jhals if you want, but then it's YOUR responsibility to be sure that a jhalfs build corresponds to a hand-build. But SOMEBODY needs to check the HSR! If you want to help, fine. Give us definitive reasons to change the book. That includes validation of your findings using our tools. Ummm, no, I'm not the author of the book. I would say the only responsibility users can be construed to have is to report problems WITH THE BOOK--which means that they vouch for their usage of the book. The book tells us we can build LFS by hand from the HSR. It seems I'm not the first who reported this nscd problem, but all they got in return was WFM! But as I question, who has verified the HSR is sufficient? I would say what linuxfan has turned up about gcc-4.something being required to compile the stack protector code is enough of a clue that the book is wrong. It's up to the author to confirm. What I can confirm is that the -fno-stack-protector workaround is insufficient. With that, of course one must insert a glibc rebuild step after producing a new gcc. But on my system, with gcc-3.4.3, test has 7-8 test failures, an exact list can be provided later. You don't need to change what you have. It's easy enough to clone directories and to do testing with that. I can follow the book well enough. I can even vouch for my usage. But I can't do your job, or Gerard's. I began programming in 1966, in FORTRAN II, on an IBM-1620, q.v. I've retired from a 40-year career in computing. I can also vouch for a diminution of skills with advancing age. One's short term memory goes to hell! That's one reason I make my scripts. You seem to be demanding perfection from a small group of volunteers. We don't claim to be perfect. There are too many combinations to check old versions of the packages against the latest version. OK, I was doing my systems development professionally. We were expected, were paid to be right. It just seems painfully obvious to me that one of the tasks of the project is not only to verify that the book works, it builds LFS, but that it builds on what you say it builds on! If you all don't want to do what's necessary, why are you volunteering? The fact you're an unpaid volunteer isn't justification for doing a slap- dash job, is it? Is that how you wish to be known? My expectation, even IMO the experience of the whole FOSS ethos, is that people who WANT
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
Your distro, your rules - but going along with that, there's the unstated your rules, your problems. There's nothing wrong with exploring uncharted waters, but if you sail into the middle of here be dragons, you can't expect to stop and ask for directions... There was a guy chained to the mast of the last boat I passed. He told me where to not go. Asked me if I'd seen Penelope. Who's Penelope? Well yes, that's true. But then, LFS is a natural path for those of us who learn by taking things apart and trying to put them back together again. Having it still actually working afterwards was always a bonus... :) Otherwise we'd use that OTHER software we can't touch, eh? -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: Everything you do communicates. (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
Paul Rogers wrote: As seems indicated by the current situation, someone should adopt a QC role, and have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. Volunteers welcomed. I began programming in 1966, FORTRAN II, on an IBM-1620 I started in 1965. I still have my FORTRAN (not II) manual. I also used an IBM-1620. The mass storage device was punched cards. Also IBM 7090/7094, IBM 360 Series 60, and CDC 6600. You don't have any standing to 'expect' anything from us. You can suggest, but with your attitude, my reaction is to push back and say no, even if that's wrong. Petulance? You need ego strokes for being helpful? Such is professionalism, eh? People report problems and you blow them off? Why are you involved? No, not petulance, frustration. You report a problem doing things *your* way and we *did* try to help. We ask for your help in confirming the problem in a way we can duplicate and you say no. Who is being petulant here? So what's your argument? We'll put whatever we please in our book, and whether it works for you or not is none of our concern? Why bother? My argument is that we will fix problems that we can confirm. I still don't see why you won't help us help you. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
The Host System requirements may indeed be too low for LFS 6.6 Updated to the packages in LFS-6.3, known to work for LFS-6.6 Added erratum to website. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Gnome desktop: unreadable characters
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:21:10 +0200 Tobias Vogel tobias.vo...@linux.com wrote: hi, thanks for your quick reply. i checked the fonts-paths and could not find anything odd about it, neither did the xorg.0.log complain about anything in combination with fonts. i ended up in reinstalling freetype2 and fontconfig, what finally solved the problem, although i have no explanation for this. hope this can help anyone else. thanks for your support! toby In hindsight, maybe fontconfig didn't cache your fonts? Or the contents of your /etc/fonts were not making much sense?? I had problems with fonts on Xorg-7.5 due to these quirks. -AKuktin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
What about LFS for Alpha?
Hi all. What happen with LFS for Alpha (not CLFS). I have try to find Kedellin, but there nothing. Best, Rafa -- Registered Linux User #471869 -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On 1 June 2010 19:40, Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm wrote: As Ken wrote and I believe, most of your development team can be expected to stay pretty close to front-line developments. As seems indicated by the current situation, someone should adopt a QC role, and have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. In all this discussion nobody has yet made that claim. A point blank question then: who installed 6.6 flawlessly with exactly the package versions given in the Host System Requirements. i.e. gcc-3.0.1, linux-2.6.18? I see Bruce has now changed the versions to those he knows to work. I'm slightly disappointed by this, because old versions were usually a lot smaller and faster, but they're still very old, so no real worries about treating them as minima. I'll repeat what I've said over the years - if you have a self-built host system (and ideally for any installed host system, but some distro setups can make it unnecessarily hard), the first step to installing a new system should be to use the kernel you are intending to boot. It gives you a .config that you can test while you still have sufficient applications. This doesn't solve everything (e.g. the x86_64 gcc-4.5 -Os problem), but it should give some confidence. It also reduces the weird and wonderful things that can cause toolchain tests to fail. So far, I've never heard anyone advocate must build on the exact versions as a QC role until you did. If we were a commercial operation, we would probably tell you one adequate previous version from which to build - not very useful for anyone trying LFS for the first time. OK, I was doing my systems development professionally. We were expected, were paid to be right. It just seems painfully obvious to me that one of the tasks of the project is not only to verify that the book works, it builds LFS, but that it builds on what you say it builds on! If you all don't want to do what's necessary, why are you volunteering? The fact you're an unpaid volunteer isn't justification for doing a slap- dash job, is it? Is that how you wish to be known? My expectation, even IMO the experience of the whole FOSS ethos, is that people who WANT to be part of the FOSS environment WANT to bring their professionalism to the effort. So, you subscribe to the idea that the better is the enemy of the good-enough ? I'm surprised you use the linux kernel. We do what we think is important. Sometimes, LFS is a minor part of what matters to us. If you have different ideas about the way the project should be going, you can make suggestions on -dev. If your ideas don't get sufficient support, you can create your own project. However, my personal view is that you built LFS several years ago and have not kept in touch with what has changed. You also seem to have a not important for me attitude to updating for vulnerabilities (evidence: your kernel version) which doesn't give me any confidence that you are liekly to do the right thing with regard to systems that people use - it might be an adequate view for your own system, but it smells of poor practice. You also seem to think paid-for and volunteer development is similar. It isn't. In one, the person or organisation with the money can attempt to make the decisions. In the other, people have to agree - those of us who decide we do not wish to spend our time in arguments that we don't find useful, may decide to reduce our presence here. And rechecking that isn't part of publishing a new version of LFS? Once upon a time this was good enough, but we haven't checked in some time. Take your chances. Is that it? That's how you want to be known? If nobody is willing to test on multiple old hosts (and old distros) that used to be adequate, I'd rather see an updated book that we know works for most people, than one that will be released when it's passed QA but is already long out of date. The support team is whoever happens to chime in on a thread. Most people here are well-intentioned, and we use our own experience both in building and in the problems we've seen mentioned. I'm happy to ignore your future postings in this thread if I'm not helping. It does require a certain attitude to do tech-support. Please reread my paragraph you quoted there (without attribution - not my favourite email technique, at first I tohught you were only replying to Bruce), particularly the last sentence. It's very easy to cause offence, and you seem to manage it well. Again, I'm talking about how the book is *developed*. You might think there is a long period when a version of the book is marked as a release candidate, and a large QA team then looks at the wording and tests it on as many old hosts as they can lay their hands on. Doesn't happen like that. At some point, an rc is made.
Re: What about LFS for Alpha?
On 1 June 2010 21:51, Rafael Ruiz gand...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. What happen with LFS for Alpha (not CLFS). I have try to find Kedellin, but there nothing. Best, Rafa Nobody has the hardware. Also, from what I can gather (particularly my experience at clfs), building on it is very slow. There were comments about longstanding alpha kernel breakage on lkml in the last month or two, and my impression is that very few people who still use alphas run them with recent software. I don't think the alpha has been mentioned since Kelledin last posted here (google thinks that was probably in 2005). ĸen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: What about LFS for Alpha?
Thanks ken. But where I can find book and packages? These must be in anywhere. Best, Rafa 2010/6/1 Ken Moffat zarniwhoo...@googlemail.com On 1 June 2010 21:51, Rafael Ruiz gand...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. What happen with LFS for Alpha (not CLFS). I have try to find Kedellin, but there nothing. Best, Rafa Nobody has the hardware. Also, from what I can gather (particularly my experience at clfs), building on it is very slow. There were comments about longstanding alpha kernel breakage on lkml in the last month or two, and my impression is that very few people who still use alphas run them with recent software. I don't think the alpha has been mentioned since Kelledin last posted here (google thinks that was probably in 2005). ĸen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- Dpto. Informática I.E.S Padre José Miravent -- OpenAXP GNU/Linux for Alpha Systems Registered Linux User #471869 -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On 06/01/10 15:19, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Paul Rogers wrote: As seems indicated by the current situation, someone should adopt a QC role, and have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. Volunteers welcomed. I'll volunteer...I can mess up anything :) At this moment I have just about recovered my LFS 6.5/BLFS devel system, from my LFS-6.3 build script screw up which, Ahem over wrote LFS-6.5 with the files/package from LFS-6.3. Care to guess when the host system puked? Thank goodness I have my self written build system/scripts ;) I am going to try it again as I am a gluten for punishment. Hopefully without the same result! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
Baho Utot wrote: On 06/01/10 15:19, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Paul Rogers wrote: As seems indicated by the current situation, someone should adopt a QC role, and have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. Volunteers welcomed. I'll volunteer...I can mess up anything :) Excellent. At this moment I have just about recovered my LFS 6.5/BLFS devel system, from my LFS-6.3 build script screw up which, Ahem over wrote LFS-6.5 with the files/package from LFS-6.3. Care to guess when the host system puked? I am going to try it again as I am a gluten for punishment. Can you please explain a little more. You are doing to start with a new 6.3 LFS system and build LFS-6.6? Please do report back any successes or problems. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: What about LFS for Alpha?
On 1 June 2010 23:04, Rafael Ruiz gand...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks ken. But where I can find book and packages? These must be in anywhere. Kelledin appears to have dropped off the net, so no idea. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys! -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On 06/01/10 18:24, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Baho Utot wrote: On 06/01/10 15:19, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Paul Rogers wrote: As seems indicated by the current situation, someone should adopt a QC role, and have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. Volunteers welcomed. I'll volunteer...I can mess up anything :) Excellent. At this moment I have just about recovered my LFS 6.5/BLFS devel system, from my LFS-6.3 build script screw up which, Ahem over wrote LFS-6.5 with the files/package from LFS-6.3. Care to guess when the host system puked? I am going to try it again as I am a gluten for punishment. Can you please explain a little more. You are doing to start with a new 6.3 LFS system and build LFS-6.6? I am presently using LFS-6.5 ( The one I just rebuilt ). That is my current daily used system. I am using that to build LFS-6.3 with KDE-3.5.10, sound ( the works ). I am going to put it on an older laptop when I get it completed. The system I am using to compile this stuff is an AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 810 Processor that has 8G DDR3 memory. I use that system so I can make mistakes really fast ;) ie things can go sour quickly and at a high rate of speed. You usually don't get a chance to see them let alone try to stop it. Once you hit the ENTER key its all over. Not even enough time to yell out a Oh Shhhi. I build the system(s) on a removable SATA 500G drive. Then rsync it to the resulting victim system. After I get that completed I am going to try using the LFS-6.3 with BLFS-6.3-svn to build LFS 6.6. All of this would be using i686. I can try building LFS-6.6 after I get the LFS-6.3 up and running then I can to the LFS-6.3 BLFS combo. I can currently build the LFS-6.3 tools, that part works I am looking at why the scripts over wrote the host instead of going to the chroot. I think that I was not really in the chroot when I ran the chapter 06 build script. Please do report back any successes or problems. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
Baho Utot wrote: The system I am using to compile this stuff is an AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 810 Processor that has 8G DDR3 memory. I use that system so I can make mistakes really fast ;) ie things can go sour quickly and at a high rate of speed. You usually don't get a chance to see them let alone try to stop it. Once you hit the ENTER key its all over. Not even enough time to yell out a Oh Shhhi. I recommend: build-instruction 21 | tee -a build.log I build the system(s) on a removable SATA 500G drive. Then rsync it to the resulting victim system. Be careful as the kernel drivers are probably different on the systems. After I get that completed I am going to try using the LFS-6.3 with BLFS-6.3-svn to build LFS 6.6. All of this would be using i686. I can try building LFS-6.6 after I get the LFS-6.3 up and running then I can to the LFS-6.3 BLFS combo. I can currently build the LFS-6.3 tools, that part works I am looking at why the scripts over wrote the host instead of going to the chroot. I think that I was not really in the chroot when I ran the chapter 06 build script. OK, thanks for the update. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New LFS business plan
George wrote:
[...]
phase 2 -- building the system
During this phase you would actually build the system as described
in the LFS and BLFS books. The time that it would take to do
this is dependent on the speed of your build-host as well as how much
you are building. For me I build the entire system descriped in
LFS and well as putting on the X-server, XFCE desktop and several more
development packages.
time -- 2.5 - 3 days (being generous here)
I think you are being optimistic, for the first build, anyway.
I'd put in 5 days for getting the first build up and running.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: New LFS business plan
Mike McCarty wrote: time -- 2.5 - 3 days (being generous here) I think you are being optimistic, for the first build, anyway. I'd put in 5 days for getting the first build up and running. This all depends on experience. Actually I think there is a sweet spot. Too much experience and people want to customize the first time and run into problems. The best time for a very experienced LFSer is probably about 4 hours on a reasonably fast machine. For the first time, a newbie could take anywhere from weeks to infinity. 3 to 5 days are both reasonable estimates. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On 06/01/10 19:05, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Baho Utot wrote: The system I am using to compile this stuff is an AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 810 Processor that has 8G DDR3 memory. I use that system so I can make mistakes really fast ;) ie things can go sour quickly and at a high rate of speed. You usually don't get a chance to see them let alone try to stop it. Once you hit theENTER key its all over. Not even enough time to yell out a Oh Shhhi. I recommend: build-instruction 21 | tee -a build.log I do log the build but when you over write binutils/glibc/gcc and /etc/* with an earlier version, one has to boot to the rescue install to see what when astray. :) I build the system(s) on a removable SATA 500G drive. Then rsync it to the resulting victim system. Be careful as the kernel drivers are probably different on the systems. Oh yes, I'll indeed get bit that that one. After I get that completed I am going to try using the LFS-6.3 with BLFS-6.3-svn to build LFS 6.6. All of this would be using i686. I can try building LFS-6.6 after I get the LFS-6.3 up and running then I can to the LFS-6.3 BLFS combo. I can currently build the LFS-6.3 tools, that part works I am looking at why the scripts over wrote the host instead of going to the chroot. I think that I was not really in the chroot when I ran the chapter 06 build script. OK, thanks for the update. Ok I'll let you know if I find something. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: What about LFS for Alpha?
Its probably been 6 years since I built lfs on my alpha, and I have not kept it up to date, but when I built it, there were no special packages for alpha except milo and aboot. The only differences I recall were in the building of gcc and glibc, (you were just telling them to build for a different arch) and booting. Milo was used on NT boot roms, and was a lot like lilo, but I had problems with it because it was built against an old kernel and didn't support a lot of hardware and file systems (ext2, for example, as I recall), but forward porting it was a huge deal, well beyond my time commitment. Aboot booted on vms boot roms, and needed a bsd disk partition, not an msdos disk partition and worked much better for me. As for where to find milo and/or aboot... Well, I suggest google is your friend. Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Rafael Ruiz gand...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:04:47 To: LFS Support Listlfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: What about LFS for Alpha? -- 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-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
On 6/1/10, Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: Volunteers welcomed. I'll volunteer...I can mess up anything :) I am going to try it again as I am a gluten for punishment. From one punishment lubber 't another: Consider using the HSR that are now in LFS-DEV for your testing. The reason I say so, is that 6.6 is a done deal and not likely to change. I started checking for barnicles in linux-2.6.18 before I discoverd that the HSR accepted the upgrade. I Built LFS-6-6 up through ch6 Glibc-2.11.1 using jhalfs. It ended up building ch6 Glibc-2.11.1 without an error. The host system was a previously built LFS-6.3 system booted with a custom made linux-2.6.18.8 kernel. cat /etc/lfs-release 6.3 - jhalfs build cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.18.8 (r...@lfs) (gcc version 3.3.6) #1 So it wasn't strictly the kernel. Perhap the host linux-headers-2.6.22.5 were too new to fail. Or was Gcc the old bilge rat whut deserves the black spot? Perhaps I missed the boat entirely. It may be never to be known. The HSR that are now in LFS-DEV were updated and I wouldn't complain about that. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)
David Expósito wrote:
I have already compiled by the lfs 6.3 and wanted to install the graphical
environment and end enterder a little more and then enpezar with the 6.6 but
This looks like automatic translation with some misspelled words.
enterder = entender = understand
enpezar = empezar == begin
first I want to end this.
for end read complete.
thanks
2010/6/1 Ken Moffat zarniwhoo...@googlemail.com
On 1 June 2010 17:45, David Expósito david.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I wonder if anyone has compiled lfs-scratch 6.3, the X-window
environment
Section 23 of BLFS. X Window System Environment
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/6.3/x/installing.html
The xorg-server-1.2.0 in the make I get an error:
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status,
make [4] *** [Xorg] Error 1
make [4]: Leaving directory '/ xc/xorg-server-1.2.0/hw/xfree86'
Thanks
--
Is there some reason why you aren't using the development book ?
Most of the package versions in 6.3 are extremely old.
ĸen
--
After tragedy, and farce, OMG poneys!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
