Re: Building a 32-bit LFS on a 64-bit host
Le Lundi, 20 Juin 2011 12:05:56 -0500, Mike McCarty a écrit : > A 64 bit machine which is 32 bit capable, is a completely > different machine in 32 bit mode than it is in 64 bit mode. > > For purposes of compiling, etc. the two modes were effectively > entirely different computers. The fact that they share silicon > is irrelevant. 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode are separate > machines from the standpoint of software builds. The reason I asked is that I'm making small LFS systems to have them run 'virtual' as UMLs (User Mode Linux) for various SW testing purposes. Running on a 64-bit host. Now, all LFS must be 32-bit in order to run as UML on a 64-bit machine. If not, arcane modprobe errors happen that I fear I would not have the time and perhaps nor the will to trace down. So I got the LFS kernel bit OK by using ARCH=um and SUBARCH=i386 but the binaries that makes the LFS system must also be 32-bits. Of course. Now it all makes sense . So I'll use then the virtual Fedora 32-bit machine to build the LFS systems. Cheers. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Webmaster wrote:
>>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
>>> check failed you can do nothing.
>> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
>> many a manager say more or less the same thing.
>
> Harsh. Automated tests are primarily for developers to spot regressions
Oh, and if I didn't make it clear, I apologize for any offence I
may have given. Sorry if that was harsh. I didn't intend it so.
Mac
--
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: Building a 32-bit LFS on a 64-bit host
lanas wrote:
> OK. I already have a nicely-equipped Fedora 32-bit virtual machine in
That was going to be my suggestion. Not Fedora, abut a 32 bit virtual.
> which I alreay built several LFS some time ago (2 years), so I'll keep
> at it then. I was kind of hoping for a 'instant recipe' that did not
> involve cross-compiling although by now it seems that indeed, compiling
> 32-bit binaries using a 64-bit host is a cross compile in the same
> rights as compiling ppc binaries using a x86_64 system. Both are cross
> compiles, no 'instant recipe' to be found for the former.
A 64 bit machine which is 32 bit capable, is a completely
different machine in 32 bit mode than it is in 64 bit mode.
I recall back in the bad old days when I had a little
S-100 bus machine with a processors which had two modes
of operation for the same chip. It could run as an 8085
look alike, or as an 8088 look alike. I ran it as an
8085 with CP/M.
For purposes of compiling, etc. the two modes were effectively
entirely different computers. The fact that they share silicon
is irrelevant. 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode are separate
machines from the standpoint of software builds.
Mac
--
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: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Webmaster wrote:
>>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
>>> check failed you can do nothing.
>> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
>> many a manager say more or less the same thing.
>
> Harsh. Automated tests are primarily for developers to spot regressions
Possibly, but not intentionally so.
> in their own code - if they happen to be useful to spot problems in an
> LFS build, that's just a bonus for us.
I was addressing the purpose of testing. The purpose of testing is
NOT to detect errors. The purpose of testing is to verify proper
operation. Regression errors is one place where it's useful, again,
to verify proper operation, as you say.
Using testing to detect errors is a very inefficient and not very
useful technique. A more efficient and useful technique is to
use code inspections.
> Personally, I don't bother - they're critical when I'm writing code, but
> I rarely take the time to run them when simply installing someone else's
> work.
Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
Mac
--
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: shadow-4.1.4.3 not available
On 06/20/2011 09:14 AM, Eric Plummer wrote: > robert wrote: >> as per instruction at 3.2 All packages ... >> >> wget ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 >> --2011-06-20 08:45:32-- >> ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 >> => `shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2' >> Resolving pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org... 217.196.43.134 >> Connecting to pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org|217.196.43.134|:21... failed: >> Connection refused. >> >> further, a visit to http://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/ reveals nothing of >> note >> for shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 >> >> suggestions? proceed with shadow-4.1.4.2.tar.bz2??? > Do a search for 'shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2' > > found: > http://mir0.gentoo-fr.org/distfiles/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 > > got it. thanks. simple solution, but since the package did not seem to be available at the homepage, I assumed, and worked on the assumption, all erroneously, that we were dealing with a typo. Thanks for your help, Eric. Robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: shadow-4.1.4.3 not available
robert wrote: > as per instruction at 3.2 All packages ... > > wget ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 > --2011-06-20 08:45:32-- > ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 > => `shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2' > Resolving pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org... 217.196.43.134 > Connecting to pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org|217.196.43.134|:21... failed: > Connection refused. > > further, a visit to http://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/ reveals nothing of > note > for shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 > > suggestions? proceed with shadow-4.1.4.2.tar.bz2??? Do a search for 'shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2' found: http://mir0.gentoo-fr.org/distfiles/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 -- Eric Plummer anadox...@gmail.com -- Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. No top posting, please. -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
shadow-4.1.4.3 not available
as per instruction at 3.2 All packages ... wget ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 --2011-06-20 08:45:32-- ftp://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-shadow/shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 => `shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2' Resolving pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org... 217.196.43.134 Connecting to pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org|217.196.43.134|:21... failed: Connection refused. further, a visit to http://pkg-shadow.alioth.debian.org/ reveals nothing of note for shadow-4.1.4.3.tar.bz2 suggestions? proceed with shadow-4.1.4.2.tar.bz2??? thanks. robert -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Building a 32-bit LFS on a 64-bit host
Le Dimanche, 19 Juin 2011 21:55:28 -0500, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : > lanas wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > How would one achieve that ? I recently built a LFS system on a > > 64-bit host, and all binaries turned out to be 64-bit. I'd like to > > build and run a 32-bit LFS system. Is there a way of doing that on > > a 64-bit host ? > In other words, install a 32-bit OS and build from there. Building > for a different architecture the the currently running system > requires cross-build techniques. You may want to look at > http://trac.cross-lfs.org/ for that. OK. I already have a nicely-equipped Fedora 32-bit virtual machine in which I alreay built several LFS some time ago (2 years), so I'll keep at it then. I was kind of hoping for a 'instant recipe' that did not involve cross-compiling although by now it seems that indeed, compiling 32-bit binaries using a 64-bit host is a cross compile in the same rights as compiling ppc binaries using a x86_64 system. Both are cross compiles, no 'instant recipe' to be found for the former. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Xorg -configure with nouiveau
Greetings, I am using the nouveau graphics driver on the blfs installtions I use. Running Xorg -configure does not work for my setup and I want to probe the monitor features for settings to put into xorg.conf BEFORE* starting X ( configuring xorg on the fly as it were) Does anyone know of the options for funning Xorg -configure for setups running nouveau? yours sincerely lux-integ #=== * when X is running one can use xrandr If any one know of a pre-startx equivalent of xrandr please let me know. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
