Hi guys:
Just to let you know that I finish my fourth lfs build (6.6) this time
and it was a success!!, I use to modify some lfs steps about the
partition,etc to make all in a vmware virtual machine and is nicely
booting now!
Thanks to the lfs developers, lfs is a great tool to teach others
mhenriqu...@terra.cl wrote:
One minor issue that is bugging me, is that there is something wrong
about the sda1 and ext3 filesystem about the dates, since each time that
I turn on the virtual machine the system stop at booting telling me that
the check date on the filesystem is in the
On 2 June 2010 16:05, mhenriqu...@terra.cl mhenriqu...@terra.cl wrote:
Hi guys:
So, I wonder if there is some way to check what dates the ext3
filesystem is taking into account to see what is wrong there or more
simple, a way to turn off that checking consistence of the filesystem
On 06/02/2010 11:32 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On 2 June 2010 16:05, mhenriqu...@terra.clmhenriqu...@terra.cl wrote:
Hi guys:
So, I wonder if there is some way to check what dates the ext3
filesystem is taking into account to see what is wrong there or more
simple, a way to
mhenriqu...@terra.cl wrote:
On 06/02/2010 11:32 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On 2 June 2010 16:05, mhenriqu...@terra.clmhenriqu...@terra.cl wrote:
So, I wonder if there is some way to check what dates the ext3
filesystem is taking into account to see what is wrong there or more
simple, a way to
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 agree, in part, with linuxfan's point that all that
On Sunday 30 May 2010 12:45:54 Paul Rogers wrote:
...
Yesterday I left my first few steps of Stage2 in place--their results
are in the FHS, which Stage1 will ignore. I CAREFULLY backed my way to
the Stage1 environment, then back through the Stage1 steps removing the
packages through the
On 6/2/10, linux fan linuxscra...@gmail.com wrote:
system, /etc/sysconfig/clock had UTC=1.
As a consequence, timestamps were in the past.
Or would that be in the future.
My timezone is America/New_York in /etc/localtime.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ:
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 04:46:36 Simon Geard wrote:
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
On 6/2/10, Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm wrote:
To be a proper trailer you need to have a system with ONLY the
minimum requirements for the book. Otherwise you aren't proving
building will work with only those.
I don't think you will find any volunteers to perform the intricate
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 reported it doesn't work with 6.1, that's as close as I had. And the
response I
On 6/2/10, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Paul Rogers wrote:
I reported it doesn't work with 6.1, that's as close as I had. And the
response I got was, paraphrasing, use 6.3, it's known to work. There
seemed to be a complete lack of recognition of it being a problem with
the
On Wednesday 02 June 2010 21:22:07 Mike McCarty wrote:
Paul Rogers wrote:
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.
Danny Engelbarts wrote:
On Wednesday 02 June 2010 21:22:07 Mike McCarty wrote:
Paul Rogers wrote:
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.
On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts d.engelba...@gmail.com wrote:
... a 6.3 system is required than the book should state 6.3 until proven
otherwise.
That is just exactly what the DEV book now requires.
Unfortunately, now we don't get to find out exactly why the original problem
undefined reference
On 26/05/10 03:04, Paul Rogers wrote:
/usr/local/src/glibc-build/libc_nonshared.a -lgcc -Wl,--as-needed
-lgcc_s -Wl,--no-as-needed `gcc --print-file-name=crtendS.o`
/usr/local/src/glibc-build/csu/crtn.o
/usr/local/src/glibc-build/nscd/nscd.o: In function `nscd_open_socket':
Some time back (LFS 6.4), I discovered that perl's configure program can
poison the build; it is designed to be extremely helpful by ferreting out
features of the host system to support. Specifically in my case, because it
found libgdbm on the host system, it configured perl to include support
linux fan wrote:
On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts d.engelba...@gmail.com wrote:
... a 6.3 system is required than the book should state 6.3 until proven
otherwise.
That is just exactly what the DEV book now requires.
Unfortunately, now we don't get to find out exactly why the original
linux fan wrote:
On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts d.engelba...@gmail.com wrote:
... a 6.3 system is required than the book should state 6.3 until proven
otherwise.
That is just exactly what the DEV book now requires.
Unfortunately, now we don't get to find out exactly why the original
From http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions
* If you get linker errors like /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols:
___stack_chk_fail, ___stack_chk_guard, this comes from using a libc that
is not glibc =2.4. Until this is detected by the build system, you can
hack it by removing
On 02/06/10 22:24, Mike McCarty wrote:
linux fan wrote:
Unfortunately, now we don't get to find out exactly why the original problem
undefined reference to __stack_chk_guard
surfaces from time to time.
I don't see why. It simply has to do with whether gcc provides the
stack clobber check.
Mike McCarty wrote:
linux fan wrote:
On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts d.engelba...@gmail.com wrote:
... a 6.3 system is required than the book should state 6.3 until proven
otherwise.
That is just exactly what the DEV book now requires.
Unfortunately, now we don't get to find out exactly why
Neal Murphy wrote:
Some time back (LFS 6.4), I discovered that perl's configure program can
poison the build; it is designed to be extremely helpful by ferreting out
features of the host system to support. Specifically in my case, because it
found libgdbm on the host system, it configured
Only one comment: are you *certain* you have removed all related
things before (or after) restoring a prior-built tarball? Just *one*
stupid file in the wrong place can bollux the works.
Yes, and yes. If I had been hand building and retreating by hand, I
agree, I certainly would have been
On 06/02/2010 08:05 PM, Paul Rogers wrote:
I don't see that the necessity of using a relatively recent version of
the kernel in the host environment to be, in spirit, any different
from requiring a relatively recent version of a C compiler. If all you
have is a KR C compiler, then the
On 6/2/10, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
The version of glibc within chroot certainly should support ssp but the
two reports we have didn't seem to find it automatically. Others cannot
duplicate the problem. If we had consistent errors on most builds, we
could fix it.
Could
My understanding is that Paul came upon an error while building 6.6
from 6.1. When he reported this error here the overall reply was that
he should try a more recent build to start with. Paul objects because
the 6.6 book stated 6.1 would suffice.
Actually, 6.1 mostly exceeds the 6.6 HSR's.
linux fan wrote:
On 6/2/10, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote:
The version of glibc within chroot certainly should support ssp but the
two reports we have didn't seem to find it automatically. Others cannot
duplicate the problem. If we had consistent errors on most builds, we
could
On Wednesday 02 June 2010 20:02:31 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Thanks for the report Neal. I wonder if the extra commands are needed
now that gdbm is built in Chapter 6 before Perl.
The extra options may be needed if perl is used in the build process before
gdbm is built.
N
--
On Wednesday 02 June 2010 20:05:36 Paul Rogers wrote:
But one *can* bellow, Where am I? And of course, one should then
expect the obligatory, Yer in a boat in the midst of the sea, ya
dang fool!
But let's not AT ALL slight the purpose of LFS, to teach us how to build
a functional
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 02/06/10 22:24, Mike McCarty wrote:
linux fan wrote:
Unfortunately, now we don't get to find out exactly why the original problem
undefined reference to __stack_chk_guard
surfaces from time to time.
I don't see why. It simply has to do with whether gcc provides the
On 06/02/2010 05:22 PM, Neal Murphy wrote:
Some time back (LFS 6.4), I discovered that perl's configure program can
poison the build; it is designed to be extremely helpful by ferreting out
features of the host system to support. Specifically in my case, because it
found libgdbm on the host
Paul Rogers wrote:
I agree that the problem you have uncovered is worth pursuing
down to root cause. Until we understand the root cause, we
can't be sure it won't come up again in the future. When it
is understood, then either a prevention in the sense of what
a minimal HSR is can be done, or a
33 matches
Mail list logo
