On Thursday 03 June 2010 00:30:58 Chris Staub wrote:
> I just built Perl in Chapter 5, and I do have gdbm installed (this is on
> a couple-week-old LFS svn host system). I get " NOT found."
> during Configure, and it doesn't look like anything in Perl tries to
> link to libgdbm.
Dig deep. Perl's c
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 pr
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
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
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 functio
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
--
http://linuxfromscrat
linux fan wrote:
> On 6/2/10, Bruce Dubbs 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.
>
>
> 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.
On 6/2/10, Bruce Dubbs 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 there be slight varian
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 K&R C compiler, then
> 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 l
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 configure
Mike McCarty wrote:
> linux fan wrote:
>> On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts 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 ori
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 clobb
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 th
linux fan wrote:
> On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts 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
> "undefin
linux fan wrote:
> On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts 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
> "undefin
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 f
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':
> /usr/local/sr
On 6/2/10, Danny Engelbarts 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 to __stack_chk_guard
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 prerequ
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.
> >>
> >> Voluntee
On 6/2/10, Mike McCarty 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 book. Frankly,
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.
>
> I reported it doesn't work with 6.1, that's as close
> > 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
resp
On 6/2/10, Paul Rogers 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 time-consuming labor.
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".
> >
> > Wh
On 6/2/10, linux fan 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: http://www.linuxfromscra
On 6/2/10, 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
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
> 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 tha
mhenriqu...@terra.cl wrote:
> On 06/02/2010 11:32 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On 2 June 2010 16:05, mhenriqu...@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 turn off th
On 06/02/2010 11:32 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 2 June 2010 16:05, 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
On 2 June 2010 16:05, 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
> acording to a date on
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 f
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 ho
36 matches
Mail list logo