Re: [lfs-support] configure package texinfo 5.2 failure

[Bruce Dubbs]

Aislan de Sousa Maia wrote:
> Here is the version-check's output:
>
> bash, version 4.2.25(1)-release
> /bin/sh -> /bin/bash
> Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22
> bison (GNU Bison) 2.5
> /usr/bin/yacc -> /usr/bin/bison.yacc
> bzip2,  Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010.
> Coreutils:  8.13
> diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2
> find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2
> GNU Awk 3.1.8

Needs to be Gawk-4.0.1 or later.  Typo?

   -- Bruce

> /usr/bin/awk -> /usr/bin/gawk
> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3
> g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3
> (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.15-0ubuntu10.5) 2.15
> grep (GNU grep) 2.10
> gzip 1.4
> Linux version 3.8.0-38-generic (buildd@lamiak) (gcc version 4.6.3
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) ) #56~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 13
> 16:22:48 UTC 2014
> m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16
> GNU Make 3.81
> patch 2.6.1
> Perl version='5.14.2';
> GNU sed version 4.2.1
> tar (GNU tar) 1.26
> xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha
> g++ compilation OK
> libgmp.la: not found
> libmpfr.la: not found
> libmpc.la: not found
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] configure package texinfo 5.2 failure

[Bruce Dubbs]

Aislan de Sousa Maia wrote:
> I can't configure this texinfo package because it complaint Perl and Encode
> module.
>
> Here is my output when issue the command:
>
> ./configure --prefix=/tools
>
> and output:
>
> checking for a BSD-compatible install... /tools/bin/install -c
> checking whether build environment is sane... yes
> checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /tools/bin/mkdir -p
> checking for gawk... gawk
> checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
> checking whether make supports nested variables... yes
> checking whether UID '1001' is supported by ustar format... yes
> checking whether GID '1001' is supported by ustar format... yes
> checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar
> checking for perl... /tools/bin/perl
> checking Perl version and Encode module... no
> configure: error: perl >= 5.7.3 with Encode required by Texinfo.
>
> The problem ocurred in chapter 5.32, LFS 7.5.
>
> Help me, I'm a novice. My system's specification:
>
> Elementary luna 0.2 x86_64 -- based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.

What is the output of the host systems requirements script in Section vii?

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] gcc-4.9.0 changes

[Bruce Dubbs]

Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 24/04/2014 17:28, Frans de Boer a écrit :
>> Ok, followed the advises from ticket #3552, now binutils chapter 6
>> reports failures:
>>
>> Running /sources-bss/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-plugin/lto.exp ...
>> FAIL: PR ld/12758
>> FAIL: PR ld/12760
>> FAIL: LTO 3 symbol
>> FAIL: PR ld/13183
>> FAIL: LTO 3a
>> FAIL: LTO 11
>> Running /sources-bss/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-plugin/plugin.exp ...
>>
>> Concerning LTO, thus induced by gcc-4.9.0.
>> Chapter 5 is completed without any errors, added --disable-werror to the
>> binutils configure...Seems that others having no problem, so what could
>> be wrong?
>>
>> Frans.
> I have exactly the same failures.

Looking at a full build, I have:

077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: PR ld/12758
077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: PR ld/12760
077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: LTO 3 symbol
077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: PR ld/13183
077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: LTO 3a
077-binutils-2.24:FAIL: LTO 11

093-coreutils-8.22:FAIL: tests/misc/nohup.sh
093-coreutils-8.22:# FAIL:  1
093-coreutils-8.22:FAIL: tests/misc/nohup
093-coreutils-8.22:# FAIL:  1

106-perl-5.18.2:FAILED at test 104
106-perl-5.18.2:FAILED at test 84

131-systemd-212:FAIL: test-strv
131-systemd-212:FAIL: test-bus-creds
131-systemd-212:FAIL: test-journal-flush
131-systemd-212:# FAIL:  3

133-util-linux-2.24.1:last: last ipv6... FAILED (last/ipv6)
133-util-linux-2.24.1:last: last ... FAILED (last/last)
133-util-linux-2.24.1:  2 tests of 127 FAILED

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] missing systemd out

[Bruce Dubbs]

TheOldFellow wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that ACL, ATTR are not needed if systemd is
> being avoided?  What else has had to be added so that systemd
> compiles?
>
> I'm also avoiding d-bus and sysklogd as I have better alternatives.

You may find 
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/eudev-alt-hint.txt 
helpful.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] missing coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch

[Bruce Dubbs]

xinglp wrote:
> 2014-04-23 11:39 GMT+08:00 Armin K. :
>> On 04/23/2014 05:15 AM, xinglp wrote:
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault-1.patch
>>> not found.
>>>
>>> There's only 
>>> svn://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/trunk/coreutils/coreutils-8.22-shuf-segfault.patch

> I don't care about the online book, there's no such file in the svn

I fixed it just now.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] ACL check errors: are they important?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 22/04/2014 17:51, Hazel Russman a écrit :
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:42:58 +0200
>> Pierre Labastie  wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that the "bin" group membership
>>> of the "daemon" user is not needed. Could you confirm?
>>
>> Confirmed. It is also not necessary to set real home directories or
>> shells for the bin and daemon users as specified in BLFS. /dev/null
>> and /bin/false work perfectly well for these.
>>
>> Hazel
>>
> Thanks for checking.

Well I did some more checking.  daemon does need to be a member of bin 
to pass all the 'make root-tests', but reall home directories/shells are 
not required.

I'll update the book.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.5 - Chapter 6 - glibc patch

[Bruce Dubbs]

loki wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:41 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> loki wrote:
>>
>>> the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well
>>> as in the download links.
>>
>> I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which download link are you
>> referring to?
>>
>> It does appear to be missing from the 7.5 md5sums and wget-list files
>> also.  I'll fix that later today.
>>
>> -- Bruce
>>
>
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/download.html
>
> And then for instance:
> http://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/7.5/
> http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/7.5/

Yes, those are both mirrors so they should be the same.  I'll get it 
fixed up.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.5 - Chapter 6 - glibc patch

[Bruce Dubbs]

loki wrote:

> the patch for glibc in Chapter 6 is missing in the tar package as well
> as in the download links.

I see that it is missing in the tarball, but which download link are you 
referring to?

It does appear to be missing from the 7.5 md5sums and wget-list files 
also.  I'll fix that later today.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] binutils 2.24 Pass-2 (Section 5.9 version 7.5)

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mcgroder, James wrote:
> Discovered the variable "CC" was set incorrectly for my second pass binutils 
> build. I assume
>
> I can simply re-execute the build with the correct setting(s) or are there 
> things I should
>
> physically delete 1st? And if just a re-build is OK, is this true in general?
>
>
>
> My mistake was keying the "TGT" part of the  $LFS_TGT variable in lower case.

As early as you are in Chapter 5, I'd recommend restarting that chapter. 
  Be sure to delete any build/extracted directories and re-extract from 
the tarballs.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] how about auto create udev-lfs-xxx.tar.bz2 automatically

[Bruce Dubbs]

xinglp wrote:
> in lfs-book, do the following job:
>
> local udevlfs=$(grep "udev-lfs-version " packages.ent);
> udevlfs=${udevlfs#*\"}; udevlfs=${udevlfs%\"*}
> local udevlfsver=${udevlfs##*-}
> sed -i "s/VERSION=.*/VERSION=${udevlfsver}/" udev-lfs/Makefile.lfs
> mv udev-lfs ${udevlfs}
> tar -Scaf ${udevlfs}.tar.bz2 ${udevlfs}
>
> http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-lfs-20140406.tar.bz2
> has wrong version udev-lfs-20140406/Makefile.lfs line:6
> VERSION=20140306

I know.  It will be fixed tonite. The VERSION in the Makkefile.lfs 
should be 20140406.  For now, make that change manually and continue.

Isn't bleeding edge fun?

BTW, I don't anticipate udev-lfs changing any more with systemd version.

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Immendorf wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs  wrote:
>> LOL.  That's html.  The book is in xml docbook.
>>
>> I'll see what I can do.
> I've looked at the patch briefly. I'm pretty sure that using rm to
> remove an executable is a bad idea in a system that might not always
> have package management. I'd also note that shadow will likely install
> man pages for the executable, and the patch does not have any
> instructions to handle that.
>
> Bruce, my suggestion would be to add a new sed based off the one for
> disabling the groups executable. I'd imagine that something like this
> would do the trick:
>
> sed -i 's/nologin$(EXEEXT) //' src/Makefile.in
> find man -name Makefile.in -exec sed -i 's/nologin\.8 / /' {} \;

Yes, I was going to do that.  Thanks for the instructions tho.  Saves me 
some time.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

baho utot wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2014 08:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:

>> Do you want to submit a patch?

> Attached is the patch

LOL.  That's html.  The book is in xml docbook.

I'll see what I can do.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

baho utot wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2014 09:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> baho utot wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote:
>>>> On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> the  configure should be:
>>>>>
>>>>> ./configure --disable-nologin
>>>>>
>>>>> as nologin was previously installed by shadow
>>>> Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is
>>>> desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary.
>>> I am using rpm package manager.  It causes a conflict when a file is
>>> already installed by another package.
>>> You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages.
>>>
>>>> Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than
>>>> shadow's groups binary.
>>> There isn't a "groups" executeable installed by shadow.
>> Yes, we do disable that.
>
> Then why not disable nologin in shadow as well?
> Why over write only one of them?
>
>>
>>>> Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed,
>>>> could edit Makefile.in to exclude those.
>>> On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages
>>> before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the
>>> Makefiles.
>>>
>>> For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and
>>> you will not know the over write has occurred.
>> That seems like the correct behavior to me.

> but not consistent as above

Do you want to submit a patch?

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 Chapter 6.61. Util-linux-2.24.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

baho utot wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2014 08:33 PM, William Harrington wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2014, at 7:20 PM, baho utot wrote:
>>
>>> the  configure should be:
>>>
>>> ./configure --disable-nologin
>>>
>>> as nologin was previously installed by shadow
>>
>> Does util-linux nologin binary overwrite shadow's? If so, that is
>> desired because util-linux ships a better nologin binary.
>
> I am using rpm package manager.  It causes a conflict when a file is
> already installed by another package.
> You then have to remove one of them from one of the packages.
>
>>
>> Coreutils will also overwrite groups program because it is better than
>> shadow's groups binary.
>
> There isn't a "groups" executeable installed by shadow.

Yes, we do disable that.

>> Rather, shadow, if not wanting to install groups or nologin installed,
>> could edit Makefile.in to exclude those.
>
> On my builds I just rm the duplicate file from one of the packages
> before it is packaged up by rpm so I don't have to edit any of the
> Makefiles.
>
> For the book the later package will over write the earlier package, and
> you will not know the over write has occurred.

That seems like the correct behavior to me.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] udev-lfs-20140305.tar.bz2 not found.

[Bruce Dubbs]

xinglp wrote:
> http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-lfs-20140305.tar.bz2

Yes, it should be 20140306.  I fixed that last night.  The on-line 
version of the book is correct as well as the svn source.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org web site

[Bruce Dubbs]

akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:27:12 +0100
>> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
>> To: LFS Support List 
>> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org web site
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:16:24 -0400
>>> From: baho utot 
>>> To: LFS Support List 
>>> Subject: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org web site
>>>
>>> I am in the process of collecting information on usinf eudev in my rpm
>>> lfs builds I have found a broken link on the
>>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/download.html page.
>>> When clicking the link for Hints Tarball (Generated daily) I get
>>>
>>> Page not found!
>>>
>>> Perhaps you mistyped the URL?
>>>
>>> In the case of a broken link, please contact the webmaster.
>>
>>
>> Had a quick nose around - don't see the tarball.
>>
>
>
>   - that was at main lfs site. Seems to be on osuosl mirror though:
>
>http://lfs.osuosl.org/hints/downloads/hints.tar.bz2
>
> ; link seems to work - but didn't check currency of contents &c.

I found one on higgs, but it is dated December 2012.  The hints have not 
been updated much in the last few years.  Looking at the date stamps, it 
looks like the only hint that have changed since then is 
eudev-alt-hint.txt that was added yesterday.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] SVN-20140331 section 7.2.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

Robin wrote:
> On 4 April 2014 15:25, Bruce Dubbs  wrote:
>> Robin wrote:
>>> Refers to udev (systemd) and not eudev.
>>>
>>> The instructions on eudev don't include creating
>>> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
>>> only /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules
>>>
>>> Is it okay to use  udev instructions from  LFS 7.5 to create the database?
>>
>> Yes, it is.  It need the init-net-rules.sh, write_net_rules, and
>> rule_generator.functions scripts.
>>
>> Or you can just add it manually:
>>
>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", \
>> ATTR{address}=="00:25:64:38:ec:dd", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", \
>> ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
>>
>> Change the MAC address to match your ethernet device.

> Thanks. I'd found
> www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/development/chapter07/network.html

Be careful.  There are a lot of recent changes in that.

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] SVN-20140331 section 7.2.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

Robin wrote:
> Refers to udev (systemd) and not eudev.
>
> The instructions on eudev don't include creating
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> only /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules
>
> Is it okay to use  udev instructions from  LFS 7.5 to create the database?

Yes, it is.  It need the init-net-rules.sh, write_net_rules, and 
rule_generator.functions scripts.

Or you can just add it manually:

SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", \ 
ATTR{address}=="00:25:64:38:ec:dd", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", \ 
ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"

Change the MAC address to match your ethernet device.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] SVN-20140331 section 7.2.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

Robin wrote:
> Refers to udev (systemd) and not eudev.
>
> The instructions on eudev don't include creating
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> only /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules

That whole part is under revision.  It will probably be a week before 
it's ready.

> Is it okay to use  udev instructions from  LFS 7.5 to create the database?

Yes.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Brand new and confused. Mostly about the 7.5 book.

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ken Moffat wrote:

>   I think we are all following Al in asking the wrong question ;-)
> Surely, the first question ought to be "What partitions will suit
> _my_ usage ?".

I agree.

>   In my own builds, /sources is an nfs mount (and it contains in
> excess of 20GB : I pruned it last week, but it has source for most
> of the packages in BLFS, so that I could test them for 7.5.  My own
> builds are motly on desktops, and in general I have the following as
> separate filesystems : /, /boot, /home and swap.  I _only_ use LFS,
> so I need at least two partitions which can be used for '/', and I
> also allocate my remaining space [ modern disks are stupidly big for
> desktop users ] to /scratch which does _not_ get backed up.
>
>   Also, if you have the space in /home, you can keep the sources
> there.
>
>   Re the other places mentioned :
>
> /usr/src : why do anything here ?  In BLFS you are recommended to
> _not_ build as root (although I do in my scripts) and by default
> /usr/src is only writable by root.  Similarly, anyone who says that
> the kernel tree belongs in /usr/src/linux is living in the distant
> past - that idea was obsolete even when I first used linux at the
> turn of the millenium.  Building newer kernels in ~/ is good.

I use /usr/src and mount it as a separate partition.  Works for me.

> /opt : Sometimes it is useful to keep this separate, but unless you
> intend to put TeX or KDE in /opt I would NOT make it separate.  Even
> if you do intend to use those space-hogs, a bigger '/' [ ideally
> with room for TWO versions of /opt ] will make building a newer
> version on the current system _much_ easier.  If you do separate
> /opt, please remember that its programs and libraries will link to
> libs in '/lib' and '/usr/lib', so sharing /opt between multiple
> systems on the same machine is not usually possible.

I don't seem to have a problem reusing programs in /opt. The libs in 
/lib and /usr/lib seem to be compatible.

>   Perhaps I should stress that the recommended upgrade path for LFS
> is to build a new system.  So, if you have /opt as a separate
> filesystem for the first LFS you will need a simialr amount of space
> for the replacement system.

I reuse it.  Sometimes I build a new version of a package like KDE.

$ ls -ld /opt/kde*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   10 Feb 28 12:40 /opt/kde -> kde-4.12.2
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Jun 23  2013 /opt/kde-4.10.3
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Aug 26  2013 /opt/kde-4.11.0
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Oct 24 06:53 /opt/kde-4.11.2
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 Feb 28 12:52 /opt/kde-4.12.2

>   IMHO, far better to make '/' big, with /opt and /usr part of the
> root filesystem.  But whatever you do, if you keep building LFS or
> similar systems you will eventually find that your partitioning no
> longer meets your requirements.  A rescue CD is essential [ please
> let me mention systemrescuecd, even though it uses zsh and is
> therefore not always plain-sailing when entering chroot ].
>
> /usr : A separate /usr is a very old idea.  Useful if you are on a
> network where /usr is an nfs mount shared by several machines.  I'm
> sure there are other use cases, but I can't think of any at the
> moment.  For most of us, giving /usr on its own filesystem makes no
> sense.

We still support the capability, although I agree that it's not very 
common any more.  I haven't done it in many years.

> /tmp : This is separate ?
> ken@ac4tv ~ $mountpoint /tmp
> /tmp is not a mountpoint

It is for me.
$ mountpoint /tmp
/tmp is a mountpoint

>   At one time we used to mount a tmpfs on /tmp, but somewhere along
> the way (perhaps between 6.8 and 7.0) we stopped doing that, which
> from my POV was a shame.  But I cannot see any good reason to give
> /tmp its own filesystem.

It can prevent a user from running the rest of the system out of space. 
  The reason I did it was because I build in /tmp although that is 
surely not common.  When it is separate, I can adjust the size easily.

> swap : yes.  The traditional theory was 2 x physical memory, but I
> might go with more than that if physical memory is small (e.g. <=
> 4GB).  On what is now a small disk I would not go overboard with the
> swap.

swapping is bad.  If you need swap, buy more RAM.  It's pretty cheap.  I 
don't recall ever needing more than 2G.

> /boot : yes, it makes things easier when you upgrade your LFS
> syustem by building a fresh system.  For me, at the moment I have <3
> MB in /boot/grub, and <5 MB per kernel - and I've got a lot of
> those, but they are generally slimmed-down to match my hardware.
> Sticking a finger i nthe air, 100MB lookss adequate.

I've gone to 200Mb, but I build a lot of kernels.  100M is plenty for most.

>   For *servers*, some other directories might benefit from having
> their own filesystem, it all depends on what you are doing.  I've
> seen a use-case for separating /var/log, and I myself separate
> /var/tmp on my server - I also have other non-standard filesystems
> there. 

Re: [lfs-support] Brand new and confused. Mostly about the 7.5 book.

[Bruce Dubbs]

Al Szymanski wrote:
> I am just trying to figure out the overall smallest size of hard drive space 
> needed for all of the partitions.
> My sums from the 7.5 book come to 80 Gig plus whatever space I want for /home 
> .
>
> [ suggested partition sizes:
>   root LFS 10Gig  
 /usr/src 30-50Gig  
 /opt 5-10Gig   
 /usr 5Gig  
 /tmp <5 Gig
 swap 2xRAM 
 /boot100Meg =~81Gig
> ]

Actually root of 10G will work fairly well all by itself.  The swap 
space really depends on the amount of RAM.  I suggest 2xRAM not to 
exceed 2G.

> The online version of the book says, "A minimal system requires a
partition of around 2.8 gigabytes (GB)." in 2.2 .

> I've 30Gig available on the host system, and have a 30 Gig drive
> that  I was planning on using to start my LFS system, but now think
> that I can not get what's needed on a small drive.
>
> So... how small a drive can I do LFS with?

This is what I have mounted right now:

ilesystem  Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda195M   56M   35M  62% /boot
/dev/sda5   9.8G  6.3G  3.0G  69% /
/dev/sda940G   30G  8.0G  79% /usr/src
/dev/sda11  9.8G  5.8G  3.5G  63% /home
/dev/sdb3   9.8G  3.3G  6.1G  35% /mnt/lfs
/dev/sdb4   9.8G  8.7G  604M  94% /opt
/dev/sdb5   9.8G  575M  8.7G   7% /tmp

You don't really need separate partitions for /opt and /tmp and I have 
an unusual number of tarballs in /usr/src/.  You have plenty of space.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LSF Package wget

[Bruce Dubbs]

Mcgroder, James wrote:
> Working through my 1st LFS build and  wget seems to have missed some files
> listed in the wget-list file.  I got the wget-list from
> ftp://ftp.lfs-matrix.net/pub/lfs/lfs-packages/7.5/ wget-list
 ^
Is there a space here or is that a typo?

> Here is an example of one that appears in the file that was not present in 
> $LFS/sources:
>
> mcgroder@JMCGRODER ~/lfs
> $ grep linux-3.13  wget-list
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.x/linux-3.13.3.tar.xz
>md5sum: 
> linux-3.13.3.tar.xz: No such file or directory
>
> There are half a dozen or so missing... is this operator error or a
> problem with the mirror site(s)? I can correct easy enough but would
> like to understand why wget seems to have sip over some packages.

The file looks OK to me.  Check that you got the correct wget-list:

$ md5sum wget-list
67eb8c72a4bfd2bd5d4298c43e7062fe  wget-list

Also check that wget actually downloaded the files.

I suggest downloading the md5sums file from the same location and 
running 'md5sum -c md5sums'.


   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] questions about chapter 5.5.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

wayne mcdanolds wrote:
>> 1) I read it as the gcc pass 1 build just requires the in-tree sources
>> of gmp, mpfr and mpc.
>>
>>
> Hello Rob,
> I agree with you about the compiling lfs (linux from scratch) from
> source. I have downloaded LFS v 6.3 and I am planning on compiling this.
> I haven't got the understanding of compiling lfs but I am studying this.

LFS 7.5 is current.  I suggest that.

> PS, I am running a Dell Dimension 4500s w a Pentium4 32 bit with 1 Gb of
> ram in a twelve year old machine.

My main system is a 2005 Dell P4.  LFS works great on it.

   -- Bruce




-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] questions about chapter 5.5.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

François Bissey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suspect it may be a case of "to much knowledge is dangerous".
>
> Having some experience

"some" experience is indeed a dangerous thing.

  in building cross compilers and bootstrapping
> systems in the past I found some elements in that chapter troubling
> enough to stop and post here first:
>
> 1) There are instructions to download and unpack gmp,mpfr and mpc.
> But nowhere to configure && compile them.
> The hints that I have from the remaining of your instructions is that
> you don't want to install them.

They are built as a part of the gcc instructions in Chapter 5.  They are 
built as separate libraries in Chapter 6.

"GCC now requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC packages. As these packages may 
not be included in your host distribution, they will be built with GCC. 
Unpack each package into the GCC source directory and rename the 
resulting directories so the GCC build procedures will automatically use 
them:"

> 2) we are asked to gcc so that it looks for ld* in /tools/lib{,32,64} rather
> than in plain /lib{,32,64}. Yet, at this stage we haven't built glibc
> which would provide it, so there is nothing in /tools/lib* at this stage.
> It looks to me like this will be useful in pass 2 but could lead to
> breakage in pass 1.

Try it and see.  /tools/lib* is the first place it looks, but if not 
found, it looks at the host's files.  That's why we build gcc twice.

> 3) configuration options for gmp and mpc? Only mpfr paths are given,
> and they would need to be compiled first - statically I am guessing.

Just follow the instructions as they are written.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 5.5 GCC-4.8.2-Pass 1 Error during Make

[Bruce Dubbs]

Joshua Petty wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First off, thank you for all the work that you guys put into
> LinuxFromScratch.  I am at Chapter 5.5 at the step to "make", but I keep
> getting errors that prevent me from moving forward.  Below is post of the
> error.  If there is more that you need please ask and I will provide
> anything that I can.  Thanks in advance.
>
> checking complex.h presence... yes
> checking for complex.h... yes
> checking for library containing creal... -lm
> checking whether creal, cimag and I can be used... yes
> checking for an ANSI C-conforming const... yes
> checking for size_t... yes
> checking for gettimeofday... yes
> checking for localeconv... yes
> checking for setlocale... yes
> checking for dup... yes
> checking for dup2... yes
> checking for __gmpz_init in -lgmp... yes
> checking for MPFR... no
> configure: error: libmpfr not found or uses a different ABI (including
> static vs shared).
> make[1]: *** [configure-mpc] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/gcc-build/gcc-4.8.2'
> make: *** [all] Error 2

You didn't follow the instructions.  Read the note carefully.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /run directory: Maybe a bit off topic?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:07:49 -0400
>> baho utot  wrote:
>
>> I think there are not many folks that have that on a separate
>> partition.
>>
>> That's really the only problem with using /var/run.
>
> Although I did toy with the idea of changing my system to have /var on
> a separate partition.
>
> It's just that it is hard to find a really good justification for
> geeking out and spreading your stuff over several storage devices.


It does make a little sense in some situations to have /var/log on a 
separate partition.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /run directory: Maybe a bit off topic?

[Bruce Dubbs]

baho utot wrote:

> Just trying to match what I have on my unix boxes.  Even if it hasn't
> been updated doesn't mean it's not relavent.
> I understand adding /sys but /run makes no sense as it could have been
> /var/run which by the way IS in the standard.

/var doesn't work if it is mounted partition.

   -- Bruce




-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /run directory: Maybe a bit off topic?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Simon Geard wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 09:59 -0400, baho utot wrote:
>> I am working on RPM-LFS-7.5 which is LFS with the rpm package manager.
>>
>> I would like to adhere to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.3 so my linux
>> systems file system layout matches/closely matches my FreeBSD systems.
>> When was the /run directory introduced and what package(s) required
>> moving run-time data from /var/run to /run?
>>
>
> Just be aware that the FHS was last updated in January 2004 - a little
> more than a decade ago - and as such is a bit out of date with regard to
> how Linux distros are doing things.
>
> In particular, it's unaware of both the /sys virtual filesystem (added
> around 2006 as I recall), and the introduction of /run (in 2011 or so).
> So while it's a useful guideline, I'd suggest not getting too hung up on
> compliance...

See http://www.linuxbase.org/betaspecs/fhs/ for the FHS-3 beta.  It's 
not in really good shape as internally it still says 2004, but I've been 
working with the maintainers to update the format a bit.

That document does have /sys and /run.  There is really not a lot of 
other significant changes.

Just a guess, but I think FHS-3 will be released this summer.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] What are the SERVICES of ifconfig.eth0 but ip4-static for ppp?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Golam Md. Shibly wrote:
> cd /etc/sysconfig/
> cat > ifconfig.eth0 << "EOF" ONBOOT=yes
> IFACE=eth0
> #SERVICE=ipv4-static
> #IP=192.168.1.1
> #GATEWAY=192.168.1.2
> #PREFIX=24
> #BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 EOF
> What are the SERVICES of ifconfig.eth0 but ip4-static for ppp?
>
> I tried:
>
> SERVICE=ipv4-dynamic SERVICE=ipv4-dhcp SERVICE=dhcp SERVICE=dynamic
>
> Got error with these options.

Sorry.  We don't have support for ppp.  That's pretty rare for us.  I 
don't recall seeing a request for that in the last 10 years.  I notice 
that there is a howto, but it hasn't been updated since the year 2000.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/PPP-HOWTO/index.html

What does your host do?

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] [spam] To post to this list, send your email

[Bruce Dubbs]

Linux Junky wrote:
> Hi Bruce, I am not spam. Did i accidentally unregister my self?

No but a message with that subject and content looks like it.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] [spam] To post to this list, send your email

[Bruce Dubbs]

Linux Junky wrote:
> linuxjun...@gmail.com

This is spam.  Don't respond.  The user registered and then unregistered.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /etc/init.d/setclock start never run when we start to use eudev

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> But does anyone have ippp or isdn devices any more?  I don't even know
>> what a dcbri device is.
>
> Spellcaster DataComm/BRI ISDN card devices
>
> Yeah, ippp and isdn devices still exist and people have them.

OK, I'll add that too.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /etc/init.d/setclock start never run when we start to use eudev

[Bruce Dubbs]

xinglp wrote:
> When we use udev  (extracted from systemd) , this is a udev rule file for it.
>
> cat /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules
>
> # /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules: Rule definitions for LFS.
>
> # Core kernel devices
>
> # This causes the system clock to be set as soon as /dev/rtc becomes 
> available.
> SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", ACTION=="add", MODE="0644",
> RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start"
> KERNEL=="rtc", ACTION=="add", MODE="0644",
> RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start"

That was in the udev-lfs tarball.  I need to add this.

> # Comms devices
>
> KERNEL=="ippp[0-9]*",   GROUP="dialout"
> KERNEL=="isdn[0-9]*",   GROUP="dialout"
> KERNEL=="isdnctrl[0-9]*",   GROUP="dialout"
> KERNEL=="dcbri[0-9]*",  GROUP="dialout"

I'm not sure these are needed.  eudev has:

50-udev-default.rules:
KERNEL=="tty[AZ]*[0-9]|pppox[0-9]*|ircomm[0-9]*|noz[0-9]* 
|rfcomm[0-9]*", GROUP="dialout"

But does anyone have ippp or isdn devices any more?  I don't even know 
what a dcbri device is.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] test on Bc-1.06.95

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ronnie van Aarle wrote:
> Hello Support,
>
> I just compiled bc but after 'make' there still is no 'bc' binary
> executable in ./bc

> after make install the tests run, but not before.

Did you log the install?  It should have:

/usr/bin/install -c 'bc' '/usr/bin/bc'

That's what installs bc.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[lfs-support] BLFS-7.5 is released

[Bruce Dubbs]

The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of 
BLFS Version 7.5.

This version includes approximately 750 packages beyond the base Linux 
 From Scratch Version 7.5 book. The book has over 700 significant 
updates from the previous version as well as numerous text and 
formatting changes.

You can read the book online[0], or download[1] to read locally.

Please direct any comments about this release to the LFS development
team at blfs-...@linuxfromscratch.org. Please note that registration for
the blfs-dev mailing list is required to avoid junk email.

[0] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/7.5/
[1] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/downloads/7.5/

   -- Bruce Dubbs
  LFS
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/read.html

[Bruce Dubbs]

Robin wrote:
> I was checking out  the subject site. Clicking the read hints link
> produces an error:
>
> -- [an error occurred while processing this directive]

Thanks.  I fixed that, but it's pretty basic.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[lfs-support] LFS-7.5 is released

[Bruce Dubbs]

The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of 
LFS Version 7.5.

This release includes numerous changes to LFS-7.4 (including updates to
Linux-3.13.3, GCC-4.8.2, Glibc-2.19, binutils-2.24) and security fixes. 
It also includes editorial work on the explanatory material throughout 
the book, improving both the clarity and accuracy of the text.

In total, 32 packages (of 62) were updated from LFS-7.4 and changes to 
bootscripts and text have been made throughout the book.

You can read the book online[0], or download[1] to read locally.

Please direct any comments about this release to the LFS development
team at lfs-...@linuxfromscratch.org. Please note that registration for
the lfs-dev mailing list is required to avoid junk email.

[0] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5/
[1] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.5/

   -- Bruce Dubbs
  LFS
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Updates development?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:

> Oeps, how about continuity in case you are not able to extract udev for
> any given period of time?

It's not particularly hard.  Just use the old udev-lfs tarball, see 
where the problems are and update the Makefile.  Generally it's just 
adding a couple of new files to compile and add to the library. 
Sometime there's nothing.

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Updates development?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:
>   From last week until yesterday - Wednesday - there where several
> updates like linux-3.13.5, grep-2.17 and 18, psmisc-22.21, bash-4.3 and
> readline-6.3 and of course systemd-209.
>
> In todays online documentation update, all mentioned packages are not
> included. It tried to compile all (except the new systemd) and ended
> without any failure. Of course, some patch files needed to be removed.
> Am I that far ahead or is development behind? ;)

We are in a package freeze until the 7.5 release.  We have all of these 
as tickets.  Note that systemd is now at version 210.

> By the way, since I use automated tools I no longer need a specific
> version adaption in my scripts, allowing for quicker re-builds. However,
> I still need to add or remove updated package specifics. Given time, I
> will resolve that too.
>
> Is it possible to publish the extraction tool for udev? That way I can
> check that part too. I am also interested in testing the full systemd
> for the systemd branch, but need more time to delve into it. So, that's
> a future goal.

The udev-lfs tarball is done manually by me for each release.  The 
package changes too much to automate it.

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] How can I fix the following errors which happen after extracting linux 3.10.10 package (chapter 8)

[Bruce Dubbs]

Yonas Zed wrote:
> i follow the instraction on LFS 7.4 to build my own distro using
> ubuntu 12.4,32 bits ...i run the ubuntu on vmware 9 by allocationg
> 42GB space for storage and 2GB memory ...core-i7 2.20GHz
> processor...is there a different installation process for 32 and
> 64 bit? or different linux 3.10.10 for 32 and 64 bits?..

You seem to be hijacking the thread.  Your comments don't match the 
subject.  That said, if you use a 32-bit host, you will get a 32-bit 
LFS.  If you use a 64-bit host, you get a 64-bit LFS.  Running in vmware 
does not make a lot of difference outside of the kernel configuration.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.5 rc1

[Bruce Dubbs]

baho utot wrote:
> As I am working on my build scripts for building LFS and adding the RPM
> package manager.
> I need to check my work against some one elses builds to be sure that I
> haven't created a catastrophe for myself.
>
> Are log files avaliable from chapter5 and chapter 6 builds?
>
> If so can some one point me to the files.

Sure.  http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] creating binutils-build again

[Bruce Dubbs]

Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Version 7.5-rc1
>
> In 5.5. GCC-4.8.2 - Pass 1, the book reads "mkdir -v ../binutils-build",
> then in 5.9. Binutils-2.24 - Pass 2, the book reads "Create a separate
> build directory again: mkdir -v ../binutils-build".
>
> There is confusion about whether the binutils-build directory created in
> pass 1 should be removed before pass 2, or if it's OK to do pass 2 with
> the existing binutils-build from pass 1.


See 5.3. General Compilation Instructions, second Important block, 3e.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:

> root:/etc# ps -e|grep log
> 1949 ?00:00:00 rsyslogd

That's not a part of LFS.  What deviations from the book have you made? 
  You should have both syslogd and klogd.

> root:~# ls -l /etc/sysconfig/
> total 32
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  186 Feb 17 10:56 clock
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  111 Feb 17 11:13 console
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1072 Feb 17 10:36 createfiles
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   77 Feb 18 20:06 ifconfig.eth0
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  559 Feb 17 10:36 modules
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   25 Feb 17 10:55 network
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2394 Feb 20 20:37 rc.site
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  679 Feb 17 10:36 udev_retry

Looks OK.

> root:~# cat /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0
> ONBOOT="yes"
> IFACE="eth0"
> SERVICE="dhcpcd"
> DHCP_START="-b -q"
> DHCP_STOP="-k"

Looks OK.

> root:~# ls -l /sys/class/net/
> total 0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Feb 20 20:44 eth0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Feb 20 20:43 lo

Looks OK.

What is the output from 'ls /etc/rc.d/rc3.d'?

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
> Yes id does included id:3:initdefault:
>
> root:/# cat /etc/inittab
> # Begin /etc/inittab
> id:3:initdefault:
> si::sysinit:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc S
> l0:0:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 0
> l1:S1:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 1
> l2:2:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 2
> l3:3:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 3
> l4:4:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 4
> l5:5:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 5
> l6:6:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 6
> ca:12345:ctrlaltdel:/sbin/shutdown -t1 -a -r now
> su:S016:once:/sbin/sulogin
> 1:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty
> 2:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty
> 3:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty
> 4:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty
> 5:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty
> 6:2345:respawn:/sbin/agetty
> --noclear tty1 9600
> tty2 9600
> tty3 9600
> tty4 9600
> tty5 9600
> tty6 9600
> # End /etc/inittab
>
> And also the in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ has the network script
>
> root:/# ls -l /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/
> total 0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Feb 17 10:36 S10sysklogd -> ../init.d/sysklogd
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S20network -> ../init.d/network

Please stop top posting or you will get ignored.  Also, trim the posts 
to what is needed.

Are you saying that 'ps -e|grep log' does not give syslogd and klogd?

Lets also review the files in /etc/sysconfig/ and the contents of 
/etc/sysconfig/ifconfig*  and the links in  /sys/class/net/

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Exotic lfs compiling question

[Bruce Dubbs]

loki wrote:
> Heya all.
>
> Need some help. I have an old lfs installation which is in production
> use, for the past 5-6 years. I guess it's version 6.3 or something since
> it has kernel 2.6 on it. It is time to install a new version on it. But
> there are the following problems:
>
> 1.) Since it is in production it can't be offline longer than 3 hrs. So
> the new lfs has to be compiled while the old dist is still running and
> then when everything is finished just copied to root.
> 2.) The compilation has to be done on this machine.
> 3.) There can't be installed any other distribution (Ubuntu, RedHat,...)
> or any virtual machine.
> 4.) Obviously I can't compile lfs 7.4 with 6.3.
>
> So here is what I need. Which lfs version can I use as a jump pad. For
> instance can I compile 7.0 with 6.3 and then compile 7.4 with 7.0? I can
> use chroot on this machine. And it isn't a problem even if I have to do
> a three step compile (i.e. 6.3 -> 7.0 -> 7.1 -> 7.4)
>
> So the question is can I compile some version of lfs which can be
> compiled on 6.3 and can compile 7.4 and can I do both or more
> compilations in chroot?

This may help:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/updating-lfs.html

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
> @Bruce, I did exactly as you have mentioned and it seems that only the
> scripts are in */etc/rc.d/rcS.d/* will get executed
>
> root:/# ls -l /etc/rc.d/rcS.d/
> total 0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Feb 17 10:36 S00mountvirtfs ->
> ../init.d/mountvirtfs
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S05modules -> ../init.d/modules
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Feb 17 10:36 S08localnet -> ../init.d/localnet
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Feb 17 10:36 S10udev -> ../init.d/udev
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 Feb 17 10:36 S20swap -> ../init.d/swap
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S30checkfs -> ../init.d/checkfs
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S40mountfs -> ../init.d/mountfs
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S45cleanfs -> ../init.d/cleanfs
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Feb 17 10:36 S50udev_retry -> ../init.d/udev_retry
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 17 10:36 S70console -> ../init.d/console
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Feb 17 10:36 S90sysctl -> ../init.d/sysctl


Does /etc/inittab have:

id:3:initdefault:

The following is being run:

si::sysinit:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc S

but

l3:3:wait:/etc/rc.d/init.d/rc 3

apparently is not.   What are the contents of /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ ?

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
> @Pierre, I checked the "/etc/rc.d/init.d/network" script it seems OK. And
> the run levels are 3, 4, 5 (as per the script). Also I checked in
>
> /etc/rc.d/rc.3
> /etc/rc.d/rc.4
> /etc/rc.d/rc.5
>
> And there are symlinks to the network script. It seems like the
> network script it self isn't get executed. Is there a way that I can
> ensure the script is being executed? Like altering it maybe

Don't top post.

Ecit /etc/sysconfig/rc.site and uncomment:

#IPROMPT="yes" # Whether to display the interactive boot promp
#itime="3"# The ammount of time (in seconds) to display the prompt

When you boot, it asks if you want to do an interactive prompt.  Say 
yes.  You can then step through the boot scripts one at a time.

Edit /etc/rc.d/init.d/network and add

'echo $interface' right below the line

interface=${file##*/ifconfig.}

Then lets see what you get.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS Website for sale

[Bruce Dubbs]

Douglas R. Reno wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> It appears that the domain www.linuxfromscratch.org is for sale.
> Just thought I would report it

Domain Name:LINUXFROMSCRATCH.ORG
Domain ID: D21865393-LROR
Creation Date: 2000-03-08T14:13:49Z
Updated Date: 2014-02-06T18:13:41Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2015-03-08T14:13:49Z

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] CLFS

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Why don't you rename it to cross.linuxfromscratch.org or similar?  No
>> domain fees required.  It would only require a new entry in the lfs
>> dns
>> server and maybe a few updates to the web pages.

> Need to contact Justin Knierim about that. We really want to keep
> cross-lfs.org for certain reasons.
>
> We should get it back no problem, but Jim Gifford owned it last, if I
> recall, and let it lapse. So we are waiting now.

OK.  Just let me know if you want me to do anything.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] CLFS

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Harrington wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:46, loki  wrote:
>>
>> On the address http://www.cross-lfs.org/ I'm getting a Domain for Sale.
>
> Oh man! I should have bought it! Well it worked 7 hours ago. It's still 
> around.

Why don't you rename it to cross.linuxfromscratch.org or similar?  No 
domain fees required.  It would only require a new entry in the lfs dns 
server and maybe a few updates to the web pages.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
> @Bruce
>
> It's strange I checked the address and it's correct. Furthermore all the
> other files are seems to be in place. But then why the dhcpcd isn't
> starting automatically?
>
> I'm thinking of writing a start-up script to solve this issue.

They are not terribly long or complex scripts.  Put in a few echo 
statements to debug.

network calls ifup.  ifup should call dhcpcd.

Also, I think I told you the wrong thing before.  Now that eth0 is being 
recognized, the config file needs to be ifconfig.eth0.

The network script should probably be changed to:

start)
   # Start all network interfaces
   for file in /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.*
   do
  interface=${file##*/ifconfig.}

  # Skip if $file is * (because nothing was found)
  if [ "${interface}" = "*" ]; then continue; fi

  . /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.$interface

  /sbin/ifup ${IFACE}
   done
   ;;

But that's for after 7.5 is released.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Oshadha Gunawardena wrote:
> @Bruce, When I checked there was already a rule, but I'm not sure if the
> address and other constants are correct or not

You can check the address with `ip link show` or `ifconfig -a`.

> # This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules
> # program, run by the persistent-net-generator.rules rules file.
> #
> # You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
> # line, and change only the value of the NAME= key.
>
> # net device e1000e
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="38:60:77:26:50:e3", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1",
> KERNEL=="en*", NAME="eth0"
>
> @Fernando
> root:/#  ls /sys/class/net/
> eth0  lo

Looks like it's working.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] DHCPCD not starting when booting up

[Bruce Dubbs]

Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 18-02-2014 12:49, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
>> Le 18/02/2014 16:26, Oshadha Gunawardena a écrit :
>>> Hi again all,
>>>
>>> I have completed my LFS build. And I wanted to install dhcpcd. So as
>>> in the BLFS I have followed every step and it seems everything went well
>>>
>>> *make install-service-dhcpcd*
>>> install -d -m 755 /lib/services
>>> install -m 754 blfs/services/dhcpcd  /lib/services
>>>
>>> *cat /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eth0 *
>>>
>>> ONBOOT="yes"
>>> IFACE="eth0"
>>> SERVICE="dhcpcd"
>>> DHCP_START="-b -q"
>>> DHCP_STOP="-k"
>>>
>>> Once I boot in to the system it does not starting up automatically. I
>>> always has to run the "dhcpcd" to get it up. So I'm wondering what
>>> maybe the issue.
>>>
>> Just guessing here.
>> Do you have any other file beginning with ifconfig in /etc/sysconfig?
>> If there is one, does it have ONBOOT=no?
>> Now coming to dhcpcd. Does it start when running:
>> ---
>> ifup eth0
>> ---
>> instead of dhcpcd?
>
> Good point.
>
> My previous LFS-7.4, had the interface named enp2s1:
>
> /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.enp2s1
>
> My new LFS-7.5-rc1: eno1636
>
> /etc/sysconfig/ifconfig.eno1636


You need to change IFACE="eno1636"

Or create a rule like:

$ cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
# This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules
# program, run by the persistent-net-generator.rules rules file.
#
# You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
# line, and change only the value of the NAME= key.

# net device e1000e
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", 
ATTR{address}=="00:25:64:38:ec:dd", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", 
ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"

Note 1: Change the address as appropriate.  You may also need to change 
KERNEL to "en*".

Note 2: The extension on the ifconfig file is irrelevant for the 
scripts.  It only needs to be relevant to 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-support] Fw: Re: /tools directory

[Bruce Dubbs]

joel kammet wrote:

> Section 6.65, Stripping Again uses /tools/bin/bash when re-entering
> the chroot environment and then /tools/bin/find and /tools/bin/strip.
> I don't suppose it matters, but I was just wondering if there was any
> particular reason that you don't use the bash, find and strip that
> have been installed in the new permanent directories.

That's so we don't operate (strip) on a running program.  After that's 
done, look at 6.66. Cleaning Up.  At that point we are done with /tools.

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /tools directory

[Bruce Dubbs]

joel kammet wrote:
> But why do you still use /tools/bin/  for bash, file, & strip on page 202?

Please don't top post.

What is on page 202?  We work from section numbers/names, not the pdf. 
The page numbers can change, sometimes radically during a nightly build.

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] /tools directory

[Bruce Dubbs]

joel kammet wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Working my way through my first build of LFS 7.4.  I'm wondering,
> after building and installing all of the packages in Chapter 6, can
> the /tools directory be deleted?  I see that find and strip are used
> in Section 6.65, but we have new copies of those in /bin and
> /usr/bin.

Yes.  See Section 6.66. Cleaning Up.

> Also, regarding backing up prior to stripping, is it ok to exclude
> all of dev, proc, and sys from the backup.  I'm thinking something
> like: tar --exclude=dev --exclude=proc --exclude=sys
> --exclude=sources \ -cjvPf lfs-7.4.tar.bz2 /mnt/lfs
>
> Is that reasonable?

Yes.  You don't want to back up any virtual filesystems.  Exclude /run, 
/proc, /sys, and /dev.  Excluding sources is optional.  You can always 
recover those.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev

[Bruce Dubbs]

Alexey Orishko wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs  wrote:
>> Personally I'd recommend:
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/
>
> Any approximate date for a final release?

The target is March 1st.

> There are a few issues with a new release for me at this point:
> - I need a kernel which has a long term support (3.10.x used in LFS-7.4 does)
> - I've switched from LFS to Cross-LFS and building on 64-bit Intel
> Core2 for 32-bit Intel Atom...

For your host, LFS should be fine, but you can substitute 3.10.x.  For 
the Atom, you may want to use CLFS.  I don't have any experience with 
the Atom.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[lfs-support] LFS-7.5-rc1 is released

[Bruce Dubbs]

The Linux From Scratch community is pleased to announce the release of 
LFS Version 7.5-rc1. This is the first release candidate on the road to 
LFS-7.5. It is a major release with toolchain updates to binutils, 
glibc, and gcc. In total, 32 packages were updated from LFS-7.4 and 
changes to text has been made throughout the book.

We encourage all users to read through this release of the book and test 
the instructions so that we can make the final release as good as possible.

You can read the book online at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/, or download from 
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/downloads/7.5-rc1/ to read locally.

   -- Bruce Dubbs
  linuxfromscratch.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] CLFS eudev vs LFS udev

[Bruce Dubbs]

Alexey Orishko wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have an old LFS 6.3 system I'm going to upgrade.
> I've noticed that LFS-7.4 and CLFS 2.1.0 have two different udev variants.
>
> A few questions related to that:
> - Will CLFS and LFS go different ways in package selection? (udev in 
> particular)
> - Which one udev variant CLFS Eudev-1.3 or LFS Udev-206 (Extracted
> from systemd-206)
>would you recommend?
>I'm aiming at minimum changes needed while moving from legacy udev.

Personally I'd recommend:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.5-rc1/

We are at udev-208.

You may also find the following helpful:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/files/updating-lfs.html

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] systemd versus sysvinit

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:

> Hm, the reason I posted it in the first place was just because I noticed
> that Bruce his name was attached to systemd - somewhere. I can't find it
> any more but still my question stands.

That's just a svn version where the editor has not been updated yet.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Basic Kernel Configuration

[Bruce Dubbs]

Armin K. wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I have been spending my time on LFS IRC for a long time now and have
> noticed that most users who come for help there get stuck at configuring
> their kernel.
>
> Thus, I have written a rather basic guide on how to configure the kernel
> to get your machine to boot for the first time (disk controllers and
> filesystem drivers), but not other hardware specific stuff.
>
> You can see it here:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~krejzi/basic-kernel.txt

I wrote 
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/kernel-configuration.txt 
a couple of years ago.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 6.40 automake-1.14.1 and flex-2.5.38

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:
> On 02/15/2014 10:48 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
>> On 02/15/2014 01:38 AM, Armin K. wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2014 01:29 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
 During a BSS rebuild I found that automake generates two errors which
 stop the auto build.

 It is introduced by flex-2.5.38, I tried the same with flex-2.5.37 with
 no errors.

>>>
>>> Maybe automake needs static flex library which Bruce disabled explicitly
>>> with 2.5.38? There were no big changes in 2.5.37->2.5.38 development
>>> cycle that could cause that.
>>>
>> Hm, I did build it with static libs. I try again with static lib's disabled.
>>
>> Frans.
>>
>>
> That did not work. With or without static (flex) libs yields the same
> result. I now continue with those two tests disabled and will look into
> it later. I still suspect that the label yylex is not exported by the
> flex lib 'libfl.so'.

I will be enabling the static flex library and the tests for automake 
will be:

mv -v /usr/lib/libfl.{so,save}
ln -sv libfl.a /usr/lib/libfl.so
make -j4 check
rm -v /usr/lib/libfl.so
mv -v /usr/lib/libfl.{save,so}

All tests pass (or are skipped) and the test time is now reduced to 
about 12 SBU.

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 6.40 automake-1.14.1 and flex-2.5.38

[Bruce Dubbs]

Armin K. wrote:
> On 02/15/2014 01:29 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
>> During a BSS rebuild I found that automake generates two errors which
>> stop the auto build.
>>
>> It is introduced by flex-2.5.38, I tried the same with flex-2.5.37 with
>> no errors.
>>
>
> Maybe automake needs static flex library which Bruce disabled explicitly
> with 2.5.38? There were no big changes in 2.5.37->2.5.38 development
> cycle that could cause that.

I'm doing a rebuild with all tests enabled right now and will 
investigate when it's done.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6 gcc problems

[Bruce Dubbs]

Change the Subject line when posting.  "lfs-support Digest, Vol 3067, 
Issue 1" is not meaningful.

Prasad Kumbhar wrote:

> The result of the system requirement script is pasted below:-
>
> root@dragonk:/home/dragonk# bash version-check.sh
> bash, version 4.2.45(1)-release
> /bin/sh -> /bin/dash

Change to bash.  I don't know how you got to Chapter 6 with this.  If 
you indeed built Chapter 5 with this, you need to start over.

   -- Bruce

> Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.2
> bison (GNU Bison) 2.5
> /usr/bin/yacc -> /usr/bin/bison.yacc
> bzip2,  Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010.
> Coreutils:  8.20
> diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2
> find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2
> GNU Awk 4.0.1
> /usr/bin/awk -> /usr/bin/gawk
> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3
> g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3
> (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.17-0ubuntu5.1) 2.17
> grep (GNU grep) 2.14
> gzip 1.5
> Linux version 3.8.0-35-generic (buildd@allspice) (gcc version 4.7.3 
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) ) #50-Ubuntu SMP Tue Dec 3 01:25:33 UTC 2013
> m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.16
> GNU Make 3.81
> patch 2.6.1
> Perl version='5.14.2';
> GNU sed version 4.2.1
> tar (GNU tar) 1.26
> Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13
> xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha
> g++ compilation OK
>
>
> help me out please
>
>
> Prasad Kumbhar
>
>   
>
>
>


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Getting FAIL msg in 6.17

[Bruce Dubbs]

Prasad Kumbhar wrote:

> I am right now on 6.17 and performed the commands given on the 6.17 but when 
> i gave the command
>   "make -k check" then i am getting the terminal full of FAIL msg some of 
> them are shown bellow:-
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-6.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-7.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-8.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/isa-9.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_2.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_3.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_4.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/l_fma_run_double_5.c (test for excess errors)
>
> what should i do? i have stopped my self at this...
>
> my host OS is Ubuntu 32bit.
> Processor:- AMD A8

We need to see the output of the host system requirements script 
(section vii).  It would also be useful to know how much memory you have 
and how much free disk space is on your lfs partition.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-support] MC-4.8.11 requires S-Lang

[Bruce Dubbs]

Sergei Antonov wrote:
> Hello!
> I tried to build MC per this:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/mc.html
> And ./configure failed because of missing S-Lang.
>
> S-Lang is currently in "Recommended" section. I guess it has to be
> moved to "Required".

We assume that recommended dependencies are installed.  With additional 
switches or work-arounds, the recommended dependencies can be omitted, 
but we don't recommend it.  :)

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Errors in 6.13 - Binutils 2.24

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:39:39AM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:10:42AM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:53:21AM +0200, Markku Pesonen wrote:

 The binutils testsuite creates detailed logs in binutils/binutils.log,
 ld/ld.log, and gas/testsuite/gas.log in the binutils-build directory.
 I have found them to be very useful in figuring out unexpected test
 failures.

>>>   Thanks!  I've just blown the first attempt away, but I'll have a
>>> look at these in the second attempt.
>>>
>>   Verily, it was written:
>> cannot find -ldl
>>
>>   So, the ld testsuite needs /usr/lib/libdl.a for the -static tests.
>>
>>   But now I wish I'd gone to bed hours ago : I'm still getting the
>> same 5 failures-
>> ld-elf.exp
>
>   Forget that.  I'd been up all night in the hope of getting these
> tests to all pass, and I guess I must have got too tired.  Apologies
> to the binutils devs for suggesting that the summary and ld.log
> differed, I was wrong.
>
>   I _thought_ I had rerun my script,  i.e. remove the directories,
> untar, patch (to see which linker was used), make, make check, halt
> and with my own log from make check logged as LFS-7.4.-3 (third build
> on this machine).  I certainly checked that the date/time (to the
> minute) of my check log and ld.log agreed, but I now guess that I
> must have rerun 'make check' by hand and I'm surprised that I managed
> to read the initial ld.log after the check log had been created, find
> libdl.a.hidden, rename it, and rerun make check (or perhaps just make
> check in ld) before the minute changed.
>
>   I could have sworn that I got the "not remade because of errors"
> message.  Maybe I reran make check, glanced at the screen with
> sleepy eyes, and read the earlier 'not remade' message.
>
>   Whatever, now that I've woken the box from suspend (don't ask about
> yesterday :) I _did_ rerun my script and all the tests passed, with
> a status of 0.
>
>   Spelled out in detail not because it is interesting, or counts as
> an adequate excuse, but because I believe that technical / support
> issues are like an exam - "show working".  Sorry for the noise.

Thanks Ken, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger.  Been there, done that.  :)

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] [blfs-support] GRUB (x-post)

[Bruce Dubbs]

Merell L. Matlock, Jr. wrote:
> On 01/28/14 12:13, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Merell L. Matlock, Jr. wrote:
>>> Hopefully, I'm posting to the right list...my Duck-Duck-Go/Google-fu has
>>> finally abandoned me.
>>>
>>> My (B)LFS system is complete and screaming right along, except for one
>>> little issue...GRUB.
>>>
>>> I had originally installed Mint 15 to be my host for LFS build. Mint's
>>> grub properly detected the Win 7 partition, and when I was finished with
>>> LFS, detected that as well.
>>>
>>> I haven't been back to either Mint or Win 7 since my original LFS boot,
>>> and I would really like to have all the GRUB info/configs on my BLFS
>>> system, but really have no idea (and can't seem to locate any hints) to
>>> accomplish this.
>>>
>>> Ideas or pointers would be deeply appreciated.
>>
>> GRUB was built in LFS Chapter 6 and the configuration covered in LFS
>> Chapter 8.  If you already installed GRUB, I hope you made a copy of
>> grub.cfg.  You can try to run grub-mkconfig to see if it finds mint
>> and W7.  Make a backup of a working grub.cfg first.
>>
>>-- Bruce
>>
>>
> 
>
> I heeded the very *first* warning in Chap 8.4.  All of the grub
> configuration/information is in the /boot directory in the mint
> partition.  I didn't install grub on LFS.

That's fine, but the LFS kernel needs to be in mint's /boot.  That type 
of problem is one reason why I always recommend a separate /boot 
partition.  That way all distros use the same one.

> Then there is this, from grub info:
>
> * At least on BIOS systems, if you tell `grub-install' to install grub
> to a partition but grub has already been installed in the master boot
> record, then the grub installation in the partition will be ignored.

I don't know how GRUB would install itself to a partition.  I don't know 
where there is space.


> Anyway, I went ahead and installed grub and overwrote the MBR. Booted
> fine, but mkconfig did not find the mint or win7 partitions.

That's because it only looked in the LFS /boot directory.

> I copied
> over the menu entries from the mint partition and all is ok.

I would expect that.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-support] GRUB

[Bruce Dubbs]

Merell L. Matlock, Jr. wrote:
> Hopefully, I'm posting to the right list...my Duck-Duck-Go/Google-fu has
> finally abandoned me.
>
> My (B)LFS system is complete and screaming right along, except for one
> little issue...GRUB.
>
> I had originally installed Mint 15 to be my host for LFS build. Mint's
> grub properly detected the Win 7 partition, and when I was finished with
> LFS, detected that as well.
>
> I haven't been back to either Mint or Win 7 since my original LFS boot,
> and I would really like to have all the GRUB info/configs on my BLFS
> system, but really have no idea (and can't seem to locate any hints) to
> accomplish this.
>
> Ideas or pointers would be deeply appreciated.

GRUB was built in LFS Chapter 6 and the configuration covered in LFS 
Chapter 8.  If you already installed GRUB, I hope you made a copy of 
grub.cfg.  You can try to run grub-mkconfig to see if it finds mint and 
W7.  Make a backup of a working grub.cfg first.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Errors in 6.13 - Binutils 2.24

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:
> The next messages are produced every single time I encounter this chapter:

> Running /sources/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/elf.exp ...
> FAIL: static preinit array
> FAIL: static init array
> FAIL: static fini array
> FAIL: static init array mixed

What type of partition are you building on?
$ mount | grep lfs

> Running /sources/binutils-2.24/ld/testsuite/ld-ifunc/ifunc.exp ...
> FAIL: Could not link a static executable

> -
>
> There are five failures and I can't find the cause of it.
> I rebuilded everything from scratch - more then once, but still
> encounter these messages. I tried this on i686 and x86_64 machines.
>
> Anybody an idea what might be the cause and if it is a show stopper.

There should be no unexpected failures.  There should only be entries like:

=== ld Summary ===

# of expected passes703
# of expected failures  61
# of untested testcases 1

If otherwise, you probably have an error in earlier builds.  You have to 
dig into the .exp packages to figure it out.

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Removed /etc During Chapter 6

[Bruce Dubbs]

Michael Gruben wrote:
> Was in a hurry and not paying attention after completing the gcc
> install in Chapter 6 (6.17 on the website).
>
> Accidentally issued rm -rf /etc while chrooted in.
>
> It's a comical situation, but how far does this set me back?  Like
> which chapter.section do I need to restart from to keep on with LFS?
>
> Thankfully(?) I did backup the $LFS/tools directory before embarking
> on Chapter 6, so maybe just start from chapter 6.1 after overwriting
> the existing tools directory with my backup tools?

It helps if you register for the list.  Unregistered messages are 
usually just deleted.



Delete all directories in /mnt/lfs/ except sources/ and tools/ (and 
possibly lost+found/).

Restart at Chapter 6.

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 5.8 Libstdc++4.8.1 compilation error also on 32-bits architecture

[Bruce Dubbs]

Enrique Larraia wrote:
> 2014/1/22 Pierre M.R. 
>
>> Enrique Larraia wrote:
>>> Not sure how to check this.
>> To be rude. I would edit gcc-build/libtool to add at line 1121: echo $PATH
>>
>
> Yeah,  this solved the issue. Now I figured out what was going on. On
> adding echo $PATH at the beginning of the problematic function in libtools
> script it was revealed that PATH  was set  to a different value.
>
> The key is in running 'make install' as 'sudo make install'. From man

You shouldn't be using sudo.  You are installing into /tools as user lfs.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 5.8 Libstdc++4.8.1 compilation error also on 32-bits architecture

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:23:26AM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:53:03PM +, Enrique Larraia wrote:
>>
>>   Your error was
>>> libtool: install: chmod 644 /tools/lib/libsupc++.a
>>> libtool: install: i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib /tools/lib/libsupc++.a
>>> ../libtool: line 1132: i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib: command not
>>> found
>>
>
>   I got sufficiently interested by this to try building LFS-7.4 on my
> i686 7.4 system, using copy-and-paste.  Fortunately (although
> perhaps discouragingly for Enrique) this isn't very far into the
> build.
>
>>   That appears to be using a libtool script.  I don't recall if it is
>> within the gcc-build directory, or the gcc-4.8.1 source - or even in
>> a subdirectory.  But I guess it is in the top level of gcc-build (if
>> I'm wrong you'll need to search for it), and perhaps created from a
>> file in the gcc source by using sed on variables.
>>
>
>   OK, so I overlooked that we are now only trying to build and
> install in libstdc++.  The libtool script is gcc-build/libtool.
>>   What is the first line of this libtool script ?  (I'm guessing it
>> will be something like #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash ?
>
>   Mine starts #! /bin/sh so the /bin/sh symlink to /bin/bash is
> indeed important.  Let's try rechecking, in case something in
> ubuntu-land is making the symlink disappear (unlikely, but when the
> obvious fails, never discount things).
>
>   I get
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ file /bin/sh
> /bin/sh: symbolic link to `bash'
>
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ /bin/sh --version
> GNU bash, version 4.2.45(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
> Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
> 
>
> This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
>
>   You are almost certainly using a different version of bash, please
> can you compare your results for those two commands ?
>
>   At this point, I'm expecting that the /bin/sh -> bash symlink is
> NOT effective - but that is guesswork, and I don't know why it would
> happen.

I don't know if it will help or not, but here is the log from my build 
this morning:

http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/036-gcc-libstdc++-4.8.2

   -- Bruce




>   If your /bin/sh is any version of bash-4.2, please try what I've
> written below.
>>
>>   Can you paste the lines around line 1132 where it is invoking this
>> command ?  I'm not sure if the ranlib (i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib) is
>> hard-coded in the libtool script [ i.e. something got processed by
>> the shell to create this libtool script ], or if it is using
>> variables.
>>
>
>   In fact, that is a chunk within a function which looks like this:
>
> # func_show_eval cmd [fail_exp]
> # Unless opt_silent is true, then output CMD.  Then, if opt_dryrun
> # is
> # not true, evaluate CMD.  If the evaluation of CMD fails, and
> # FAIL_EXP
> # is given, then evaluate it.
> func_show_eval ()
> {
>  my_cmd="$1"
>  my_fail_exp="${2-:}"
>
>  ${opt_silent-false} || {
>func_quote_for_expand "$my_cmd"
>eval "func_echo $func_quote_for_expand_result"
>  }
>
>  if ${opt_dry_run-false}; then :; else
>eval "$my_cmd"
>^ this is line 1132
>my_status=$?
>if test "$my_status" -eq 0; then :; else
>  eval "(exit $my_status); $my_fail_exp"
>fi
>  fi
> }
>
>   So we can see that either the function is being misparsed (perhaps
> the local variables give a problem), or else the command is simply
> not being found.
>
>   In the previous case (x86_64) I think we established that the
> ranlib WAS on the PATH, but let's check in your case that things are
> correct.  Here are my commands and results -
>
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ echo $PATH
> /tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
>
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ type -pa i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib
> /tools/bin/i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib
>
> lfs:/mnt/lfs/sources/gcc-build$ ldd $(type -pa
> i686-lfs-linux-gnu-ranlib)
>   linux-gate.so.1 (0xe000)
>   libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7701000)
>   libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb754c000)
>   /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb772d000)
>
>   And if your results really do match all of mine, I think I need a
> very stiff drink ;-)
>





-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Building Check-0.9.10 fails and fixed

[Bruce Dubbs]

Loïc Le Ninan wrote:
> Loïc Le Ninan  gmail.com> writes:
>
>> So something probably went wrong in gcc pass 2, and it would be best to
>> start over again from scratch I suppose
>
> Hello,
>
> Self-replying my previous message after further investigation on this
> problem, and finally solving it.
>
> Both my gcc and binutils from pass 2 were built from the host toolchain, and
> not from pass 1.
>
> And it appears that the reason for this is a copy/paste error... More
> precisely : selecting the 'configure' commands from the PDF version of LFS
> 7.4 did not select the backslash at the end of each line on pages numbered
> 45 and 48. And I did not notice the problem until step 5.14 crashed.
>
> I started over from scratch using the right 'configure' commands, and step
> 5.14 went fine. Problem solved.
>
> Conclusion : Do not patch if it is not specified in the book, but
> double-check everything instead.

Copy from pdf is problematical.  It depends on the client.  Doing the 
copy from html on the web site is much more reliable.  You can download 
the no-chunks html version and access as a local file with your browser 
from your local system if connectivity is a problem.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Proposed Changes to LFS Book

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:50:47PM -0500, alex lupu wrote:
>> Dear Development LFS Book Administrators:
>>
>
>   For development, you ought to post to lfs-dev, but you'll need to
> subscribe before you do that.  The devs (primarily Bruce and Matt)
> might read this here, I'm not sure.

Yes.  I read everything here.  I respond as time permits.

I agree with everything Ken says.  My reaction was generally, "If a user 
doesn't see that, then LFS is too advanced for them."

   -- Bruce


>> I would like to submit for your consideration the following changes
>> to the Section "III. 6.7. Linux-3.12.6 API Headers" of the
>> "Linux From Scratch - Version SVN-20140102" book.
>>
>> 1. After the paragraph
>>
>> " ..: This is done by
>>way of sanitizing various C header files that are shipped in the Linux
>>kernel source tarball.",
>>
>>   I would insert:
>>
>> Note:
>>For the meaning of the action "sanitizing" (in this context), run command
>> sh scripts/headers_install.sh | sed s/echo//
>>and in the output read the section between "Prepares " and " keywords."
>>(output, lines 3-6).
>>
>
>   I don't find that helpful.  At all.
>
>> 2. After section
>>
>> "They are placed in an intermediate local ",
>>
>>   I would insert:
>>
>>   "subdirectory (named by us, 'dest', in the command below)"
>>
>
>   If the user does not understand that we are creating a directory
> called 'dest' then LFS is probably too hard for them.  In
> everything, a balance is needed between explaining and teaching your
> grandmother to suck eggs.
>
>> 3. After
>>
>> "copied to the needed location",
>>
>>   I would change to
>>
>> "copied to the intended user-space standard location, '/usr/include/...'"
>>
>
>   Again, that should be obvious from the command.
>
>> 4. I would change the command
>>
>> cp -rv dest/include/* /usr/include
>>   to
>> cp -prv dest/include/* /usr/include
>>
>> That would synchronize the file times in the '/usr/inlude/' tree to the
>> times
>> of the files created in the kernel directory on running the command
>> 'make headers_install', and not assign them an arbitrary time when I get
>> around to
>> run the copy after taking out the garbage and then getting a well deserved
>> rest
>> before being finally able to complete the procedure :)
>>
>   So, you think that the time(s) when the files were initially
> created in dest/ are more important than the times when they were
> finally installed to /usr ?  Why ?
>
> ĸen
>


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Glibc

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Darryl Jackson wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am trying to get glibc installed on my system, so I can continue/begin
> LFS. I get the same error from Glibc versions 2-17, and 18.
>
> //home/william/Downloads/glibc-2.18/nis/nis_file.c:42: undefined
> reference to `xdrstdio_create' /

> Research says it is trying to do a sunrpc (procedure call) and seems to
> have something to do with ports. It is a known problem on some platforms:
>
>
> 12.57.45 |xdrstdio_create|
>
> Gnulib module: ---

Gnulib and glibc are not the same thing.

What is your host distribution and what is the output of the host system 
requirements script?

The symbol xdrstdio_create is normally in /usr/include/rpc/xdr.h after 
installation, but that file is in the glibc package.  I note that the 
problem is not that the file was not found, but the variable not defined.

Are you doing things *exactly* as they are in the book?

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Static versus Shared libraries

[Bruce Dubbs]

Aleksandar Kuktin wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:49:11 -0600
>> William Harrington  wrote:
>
>> After your whole build is done, you can use rm to remove them.
>
> There is actually a problem with libtool and just rm-ing a static
> library. I don't know the specifics of it, but subsequent build
> attempts of other packages needing the affected libraries may fail.

Then you also remove the *.la files.  They generally get in the way. 
The exception is ImageMagick modules.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Static versus Shared libraries

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:
> Dear reader,
>
> While building things again, I now start to wonder why LFS let almost
> every package installs a static library? Where are the static libraries
> used?
>
> After all, the down side of static libraries is that once linked into a
> module/program, any upgrade is not incorporated. Potentially leaving
> modules/programs vulnerable to manipulation.
>
> It is listed that only a very few use some static libraries and others
> are not mentioned. I know, disk space is not an issue nowadays, but
> still it needs to be maintained and dependencies are not listed anyhow.
>
> Can someone shed some light on this issue?

See 
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable/introduction/libraries.html

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS and network aliases on ethernet ports

[Bruce Dubbs]

Geoff Swan wrote:
>
> On 23/12/2013 11:03 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Geoff Swan wrote:
>>> Is it possible to add alias networks to an ethernet device in LFS-7.4?
>>>
>>> I was used to the old method of having ifconfig-eth0:1, etc with the
>>> alias network defined in this file, as for the ifconfig-eth0 file.
>>> However the alias files do not appear to be recognised on boot. I don't
>>> think the /lib/services/ipv4-static script recognises the config files.
>>
>>
>> What are the contents of your ifconfig.eth0:1 file?

> The eth0:1 file:
>
> ONBOOT=yes
> IFACE=eth0:1
> SERVICE=ipv4-static
> IP=205.158.179.178
> GATEWAY=205.158.179.161
> PREFIX=27
> BROADCAST=205.158.179.191

For testing, make ONBOOT=no.  The GATEWAY needs to be commented out 
since it is not in the eth0:1 network.

You can then test using '/sbin/ifup eth0:1' or 'ifdown eth0:1'

BTW, You never said what messages you got, if any.  You should get some 
kind of message for either success or failure.

After getting it to work, change ONBOOT back to yes.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS and network aliases on ethernet ports

[Bruce Dubbs]

Geoff Swan wrote:
> Is it possible to add alias networks to an ethernet device in LFS-7.4?
>
> I was used to the old method of having ifconfig-eth0:1, etc with the
> alias network defined in this file, as for the ifconfig-eth0 file.
> However the alias files do not appear to be recognised on boot. I don't
> think the /lib/services/ipv4-static script recognises the config files.


What are the contents of your ifconfig-eth0:1 file?

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Kernel file not found

[Bruce Dubbs]

Igor Živković wrote:
> On 12/22/2013 09:02 AM, Cliff McDiarmid wrote:
>>
 set root=(hd0,7)

 menuentry "LFS6, Linux 3.12.1-lfs-7.2" {
 linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.1 root=/dev/sda7 ro
 }

 menuentry "LFS7, Linux 3.12.5-lfs-7.4" {
 linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.5 root=/dev/sda6 ro
 }

 How is this? Spelling is all correct in /boot. The host 'LFS6' boots fine.
>>>
>>> You're missing set root=(hd0,6) for in the LFS7 menu entry.
>>
>> Yes thanks that boots the new system okay but leaves lfs6unbootable .  I.e 
>> no file found.  There must be some kind of syntax error here somewher.
>
> Instead of global set root statement, define it in each menu entry like
> this:
>
> menuentry "LFS6, Linux 3.12.1-lfs-7.2" {
>   set root=(hd0,7)
>   linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.1 root=/dev/sda7 ro
> }
>
> menuentry "LFS7, Linux 3.12.5-lfs-7.4" {
>   set root=(hd0,6)
>   linux /boot/lfskernel-3.12.5 root=/dev/sda6 ro
> }

This type of problem is generally solved by having /boot on a separate 
partition.  It also gives the advantage of being able to access boot.cfg 
from any booted system without a separate mount.

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-support] Nettle Dependency

[Bruce Dubbs]

Jason Yailm wrote:
> Dear Mr. Dubbs,
>
> In following the instructions for the installation of nettle, I
> realized that in order to create the libhogweed libraries, I needed
> gmp.
>
> As you can see here after the "Now, as the root user:" statement in
> the "Installation of Nettle" section,
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/nettle.html
>
> the installation implies the creation of a /usr/lib/libhogweed.so.2.5
> file. I do not have gmp, and this family of libraries was not created
> for me.
>
> After installing gmp, the previous directions did create the hogweed
> family.

These messages should go to blfs-support, not me personally.

gmp is installed in LFS.

   -- Ntuvr

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB

[Bruce Dubbs]

Dan McGhee wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 04:09 PM, akhiezer wrote:
>>> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:00:11 -0600
>>> From: Dan McGhee 
>>> To: LFS Support List 
>>> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB
>>>
>>> [...] But, AFIK, the user must *make*
>>> the partition behave with the GUID's. [...]
>>
>> Not quite sure what you're meaning there, Dan - apols if/that am being dense:
>> elab if poss? (No probs of course if not.)
> No prob anywhere.
>
>> [...] But, again AFIK, if the firmware
>> is MBR based, you're still limited to four primaries.
>>
>> IIUYC: no; e.g. got an old (a testing-machine) p4 on a supermicro p4spa+ (or
>> sim) mainboard, running modern blfs/slack1337, with disks partitioned with
>> GPT and each disk has ~16 partitions. No non-/pre-GPT stuff in sight, no
>> UEFI stuff in sight, and all goes just fine.
> This is what I meant. The user needs a gpt capable partitioning tool to
> *make it so* on an "older" machine.
>> And, again IIUYC re 'primaries': no such concept in GPT, at least not in
>> pre-GPT sense; and in pre-GPT sense, yes, the spec only allows for 4 
>> primaries
>> anyhow.

> This is another source of misunderstanding. May be too strong a word.
> It's all vocabulary. MSDOS MBR's don't have the "bit length" to
> physically support more than what is know as a "primary," as opposed to
> "extended" partition.

Not quite.  The MBR handles 32-bit words.  That gives addressing of up 
to 4G of 512-byte partitions.  That's how you get the 2T limit.  The 
limit could be higher if the block size is 4K, but that creates a lot 
more problems for the legacy BIOS, so it's better to just use GPT that 
has 128-bit lengths for sector addressing.  That's enough for a zetabye 
or so even with 512-byte sectors.  Try to run fsck on that!  :)

Extended partitions have the same limitations as MBR primary partitions, 
but there are just in a linked list and not an array.

> I don't have a "pdf reader" set up on my new LFS
> yet so I can't refer to an article I'm thinking of. But if I remember,
> the "old" MBR is 16 bit. The UEFI bios firmware is 128 bit. There, of
> course, is a limit to the number of partitions, but it's large. :)

I think it is 128 partitions by default, but it can be made to handle more.

Another difference is that classical systems start the first partition 
at the 2nd 'physical' track (often faked in drives) of 63 sectors.  That 
leaves about 31K for the GRUB2 code.  For GPT, we make a raw boot 
partition for grub, usually 1Mb, that give it lots of space for 
expansion, but is negligible compared to the whole disk drive.

 From our perspective, the only thing that is needed is to load one 
512-byte sector into memory and execute it.  The bootstrapping continues 
from there and only needs very basic BIOS calls to load other sectors 
into memory.  Of course after booting, the kernel does not need the 
BIOS/UEFI at all.

   -- Bruce


> I find this subject fascinating, but until I get my new system where I
> want it, I'm hampered by jumping back and forth between Ubuntu and LFS.
> So I'm just still building until then.
>
> Thanks for responding akh, you've provided me with some more precision
> in my ability to talk about this.
>
> Dan
>


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB

[Bruce Dubbs]

Dan McGhee wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 02:08 PM, loki wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 09:24 -0600, Dan McGhee wrote:
>>
>>> Are you trying to do this on a UEFI system?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>
>> Nope. I'm not even sure that this old rig is EFI capable :) And secondly I'm
>> too lazy to learn it since for the servers that I use 4 primary partitions is
>> the most I'm going to use and the other gizmos and gadgets that EFI has are
>> also overkill. :) And I'm somewhat old school, I don't believe that the
>> computer itself should have a full fledged operating system embedded on it.
>> I'm from the Kickstart Disk generation. Basic Input Output System, just get 
>> it
>> to the state where the operating system can take the computer over and then
>> vanish. But at the end I'm very reluctant to use something that is embedded 
>> on
>> the machine and has the touch of MICROSOFT on it. :p
>>
> You and I have similar attitudes, esp with regard to the "M-word." :)  From 
> the
> research I did I concluded that the UEFI thing is here to stay--doesn't
> necessarily mean "secure boot" either.  In fact, that's the first thing I 
> turned
> off with my new machine.  What I like is not being limited to four primary
> partitions.

You can do that in a BIOS based system.  You can use GPT without UEFI. 
I think there may be an issue if you have a boot partition that ends 
above 2T, but I always recommend a small partition at the beginning for 
/boot.

The trick for grub users is to get it to "look across" the
> partitions without having to have a "signed" grub.efi file.  And as soon as I
> get my LFS system to the point I want to reach, I'm going to do another build
> and see if I can make that happen.

Doesn't UEFI systems have a 'Legacy' mode where that stuff is not needed?

   -- Bruce


> What else I learned was that UEFI is a manufacturer thing, but secure boot is
> the innovation (?) of the "M-word."  Go figure.
>
> Of course, if your "rig" is old, this is not relevant.  But as my niece tells
> me, "Old is only a number." :) :)
>
> Dan
>
>
>


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 - Chapter 8.4 - GRUB

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Dan McGhee wrote:
>
>>> /usr/share/grub/grub-mkconfig_lib: line 53: 12058 Segmentation
>>> fault  (core dumped) "${grub_probe}" -t fs "$path" > /dev/null
>>> 2>&1
>>> Path `/boot/grub' is not readable by GRUB on boot. Installation is
>>> impossible. Aborting.
>
> Did you use optimizations while building grub?

I've always thought that not having a separate /boot partition that is 
separate from any raid device makes things unnecessarily complicated. 
The typical size of 100-200 Mb is trivial on today's drives and the fact 
that it is read mostly means that backups should be easy.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.9 - Glibc - interpreting errors

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> There was another thread in this form which did not yield the desired
> result. So, maybe I can revive it.
>
> Below is the output listing from the test in 6.9.1:
>
> make[1]: Target 'check' not remade because of errors.
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/sources/glibc-2.18'
> Makefile:9: recipe for target 'check' failed
> make: *** [check] Error 2

This will always occur unless you have a completely clean test -- which 
I've never seen.

> Display errors
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/csu/test-multiarch.out] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [csu/tests] Error 2
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error 1
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
> make[1]: *** [posix/tests] Error 2
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/nptl/tst-attr3.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/nptl/tst-pthread-getattr.out]
> Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/nptl/tst-execstack.out] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [nptl/tests] Error 2
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/conform/run-conformtest.out] Error 1
> (ignored)
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-chk3.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-lfschk3.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-chk6.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/debug/tst-lfschk6.out] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [debug/tests] Error 2
> make[1]: *** [/sources/glibc-2.18/build/c++-types-check.out] Error 1
> make: *** [check] Error 2
>
> Some errors are explained in the documentation, while others are not.
> The question is now: is it safe to install glibc or not?

Some of these are are new to me.  Did you try to run the tests with 
TIMEOUTFACTOR=16?

   -- Bruce



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 Chap 6.17 GCC-4.8.1 -- unexpected failures

[Bruce Dubbs]

Bob Elgie wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Unix User 
> wrote:
>

> Thank you, Seba, for spotting that. During Chapter 5 I did link sh to bash
> in the host. In Chapter 6, after the chroot, that link is invisible, isn't
> it? The only accessible shell is the bash in the toolchain, I believe.

That's correct. Only bash is in the chroot environment.

  I don't know what caused the problem, but you should not see that many 
errors.   How much disk space do you have on your LFS partition?  What 
kind of hardware are you building on?  Is this in a virtual environment?

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 / i686-pc-linux-gnu / drm_kms_helper: panic occurred

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ron Hartikka wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> I took a picture and used OCR.
> Is it enough to give you an idea of what is wrong?
> I seemed to have no issues through Chapter 8.
> I also installed everything in 9.3 except gptfdisk and parted.
>
> Any guidance appreciated,
> Ron
>
> 
>
> 63.156739]   C] ? SyS_nknod+6x28/8x38
> 63.156736]   E] nount_root+8xf3/6xfb
> 63.156736]   C] ? SyS.unlink+0x18/9x26
> 63.1567361   Kcl9c817a>l ? initrd_ 1 oad +8x43/8x47
> 63.159736]   [] prepare_nanespace*6xllf/6xl59
> 63.159736]   [] ? SyS_access +8x29/8x39
> 63.1597361   [] kernel_init_freeable+0xlb7/0xlc4
> 63.1597391t] ? do_early_paran+0x78/0x78
> 63.1567361   Kcl6e?fdb>] kerne1_init+exb/8x148
> 63.1567361   [1 ret_fron_kernel_thread+0xlb/0x28
> 63.1567361   [] ? rest_ init+8x68/8x68
> *63.1567361 drm_kms_helper: panic occurred, switching back to text console*
> 63.266161] -1 cut here 1-

The most common reason for kernel panics during boot is that one or more 
drivers are not built into the kernel.  Typically the missing drivers 
are ext, pci, or sata.  Make sure they are =y and not =m.

I see you have a 32-bit system.  What's the output of lspci and how did 
you format your root partition?

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Ethernet Card Not Found

[Bruce Dubbs]

Alan Feuerbacher wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 8:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Alan Feuerbacher wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2013 11:50 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>> Dan McGhee wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> r8169  71677  0
>>>>>> mii13527  1 r8169
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the help in the kernel for CONFIG_R8169:
>>>>
>>>> Selects: FW_LOADER [=y] && CRC32 [=y] && MII [=y]
>>>
>>> How does one access this "help"?
>>
>> Use a / and type in a term.
>
> Can you explain this more fully?

While in menuconfig, type /.  You can figure it out from there.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 / 6.17. GCC-4.8.1 ... FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C

[Bruce Dubbs]

William Harrington wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Ron Hartikka wrote:
>
>> I should have said I came across that thread and other threads
>> elsewhere about this error.
>
>
> As far as looking through the gcc-testresults mailing list:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?wm=wrd&form=extended&m=all&s=D&ul=%2Fml%2Fgcc-testresults%2F%25&q=AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest
>
> Maybe you'll find your platform there.

It looks like the the issue is specific to the x86 architecture.
I would ignore it.


   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 / 6.9 - Glibc - how to tell if error messages are benign or critical?

[Bruce Dubbs]

frozen tuesday wrote:
>> root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log
>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/
> test-float.out] Error 1
>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ldouble.out] Error 1
>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ildoubl.out] Error 1
>> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ifloat.out] Error 1
>
>
>> I would want to dig into the tests to see what is failing.
>> They all look related and my first reaction is that there
>> are hardware issues, but I haven't seen these particular
>> errors before.

> Is there any way for a relatively novice user like myself to better
> determine what these errors are before continuing, as you suggested? I
> suppose the only other route for me to take is to forge ahead and hope for
> the best.

Look at the contents of /sources/glibc-build/math/test-*.out.  Sometimes 
tracing the sources through the test suite can be quite challenging.  On 
the other hand, sometimes errors may be indicated by an off-by-one issue 
in the least significant digit.  Unless you are doing really heavy math, 
that probably is something you can live with.

> As mentioned before, it's a relatively older system (Athlon XP 3200+) which
> doesn't have SSE2 or other newer instruction extensions. Could that be the
> cause of the errors?

That's possible, but I'd think it would have been handled in the code. 
If it should be and isn't, then it does need to be brought up upstream.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 7.4 / 6.9 - Glibc - how to tell if error messages are benign or critical?

[Bruce Dubbs]

frozen tuesday wrote:
> Hello all --
>
> I just ran "make" on Glibc in section 6.9. Using Linux Mint 15 on an Athlon
> XP 3200+ as my host system to build.
>
> When I ran the non-optional checks on Glibc using the commands:
>
> make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
> grep Error glibc-check-log
>
>
> Grep returned the following error messages in the log. Most of them I
> recognize from the documentation but some I do not. I do not know if I can
> continue or need to redo some step(s).
>
> root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-float.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ldouble.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ildoubl.out] Error 1
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/math/test-ifloat.out] Error 1

I would want to dig into the tests to see what is failing.  They all 
look related and my first reaction is that there are hardware issues, 
but I haven't seen these particular errors before.

> make[1]: *** [math/tests] Error 2
> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] Error 1
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
> make[1]: *** [posix/tests] Error 2
> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/conform/run-conformtest.out] Error 1
> (ignored)
> make: *** [check] Error 2
> root:/sources/glibc-build#
>
> What worries me the most is the last line of the make output (right before
> I ran the grep line) which states that "check" was not "remade" because of
> errors.

That is quite normal,

> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors.
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.18'
> make: *** [check] Error 2
>
>
> Is this a serious problem or something I can safely ignore?

There is nothing in LFS that I know of that uses floating point, but 
there are definitely places in BLFS that do.  I would like to know the 
nature of the failures before continuing.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] 7.4 5.15. Ncurses-5.9 fails to make

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ron Hartikka wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
>
> Things seemed to be going well and according to the book until ncurses.
> My host is Ubuntu 13.10 the rest of my info is below.
> Any ideas what is wrong?

Not really.  include/ncurses_def.h is definitely wrong.  That's a 
generated file.  The host requirements look OK, but I do see that 
configure is picking up mawk anyway.

My log shows:

   AWK=gawk sh ./MKncurses_def.sh ./ncurses_defs >ncurses_def.h

You may want to mv mawk to mawk.sav and try again.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Shadow tar file

[Bruce Dubbs]

Frans de Boer wrote:
> I noticed that the debian site can't be reached anymore and therefore
> the newest shadow tar can't be reached - if any.
>
> Does anybody knows where the latest shadow tar's can be found - beside
> the LFS site.

http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/shadow/

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Configuring 3.10.10 for quad-core processor

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:47PM -0600, William Harrington wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Dan McGhee wrote:
>>
>>> AMD-10-5745M
>>
>> Have you used the powernow-k8 driver and have SMP enabled?
>>
>> http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/X86_POWERNOW_K8.html
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> WIlliam Harrington
>
>   Powernow is for cpufreq (a good thing to use, IMHO, but not
> mentioned in LFS) and not used anymore for K10 and newer CPUs (the
> support is now in acpi-cpufreq).  From memory, the initial K10 was
> the athlon64xII.  My git-foo isn't good enough to identify which
> release that happened in, but the indications are that it was well
> before 3.10.
>
>   SMP is the key.
>
>   If Dan is building only for that machine (and doesn't intend to use
> the system to boot any replacement machine when the time comes) then
> optimizing for the specific processor family, i.e. AMD x86_64
> (Opteron/Athlon/Hammer/K8 : this is CONFIG_MK8 but works on K10 ;-)
> might gain a little, as might Multi-Core Scheduler support.

I hate to mention the obvious, but is CONFIG_X86_64_SMP set in the 
kernel?  Other possibilities:

CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS=y
CONFIG_GENERIC_SMP_IDLE_THREAD=y
CONFIG_SMP=y
CONFIG_HAVE_TEXT_POKE_SMP=y

   -- Bruce


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] TLDP LFS Guide

[Bruce Dubbs]

lfs-support.neophyte_...@ordinaryamerican.net wrote:
> I've started trying to use LFS 7.4.
>
> As usual with these things, I took a tangent and went looking for Internet
> references outside of www.LinuxFromScratch.org.
>
> Does anyone within the LFS project maintain The Linux Documentation Project
> LFS Guide, http://www.tldp.org/guides.html#lfs or is that done by someone
> attached to TLDP? TLDP's information is out-of-date. It refers to version
> 6.1.1.

That reference *is* the book as it was written for LFS 6.1.1.  I once 
tried to get them to list BLFS (I think around 2005), but they got too 
fussy about the license.  I didn't see the value.  A lot of their stuff 
is quite out of date.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Host System Requirements LFS 7.4 with Mageia 3

[Bruce Dubbs]

a...@xfsmail.com wrote:

> My real point is this one.
> Bash-3.2 (/bin/sh should be a symbolic or hard link
> to bash) I think maybe it means /bin/sh should be /bin/bash ( /bin/sh ->
> /bin/bash) but mine is ( /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/bash ).
> ( /bin/sh -> /bin/bash ) = ( /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/bash ) are they same?

The normal place for bash is /bin because in the case of a separate /usr 
partition it will not be available.  A separate /usr partition is very 
rare because disk drives are quite large and is not needed.

What you have should work fine with regards to bash.

   -- Bruce

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Host System Requirements LFS 7.4 with Mageia 3

[Bruce Dubbs]

a...@xfsmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi all, I'm still new for LFS, I'm going too try it.
>
> I'm with
> Mageia 3 and this is on the host
>
> 
>
> bash,
> version 4.2.37(2)-release
> /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/bash
> Binutils: (Linux/GNU
> Binutils) 2.23.51.0.8.20121218
> bison (GNU Bison) 2.7
> /usr/bin/yacc ->
> /usr/bin/yacc.bison
> bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010.
> Coreutils:
> 8.20
> diff (GNU diffutils) 3.2
> find (GNU findutils) 4.5.10
> GNU Awk
> 4.0.2
> /usr/bin/awk -> /usr/bin/gawk
> gcc (GCC) 4.7.2
> g++ (GCC) 4.7.2
> (GNU
> libc) 2.17
> grep (GNU grep) 2.14
> gzip 1.5
> Linux version
> 3.8.13-desktop586-1.mga3 (i...@jonund.mageia.org) (gcc version 4.7.2
> (GCC) ) #1 SMP Tue May 14 19:06:27 UTC 2013
> m4 (GNU M4)
> 1.4.16
> version-check.sh: line 29: make: command not found
> GNU patch
> 2.7.1
> Perl version='5.16.3';
> sed (GNU sed) 4.2.2
> tar (GNU tar)
> 1.26
> Texinfo: makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13
> xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.2alpha
> g++
> compilation OK
> 
>
> Is my Mageia 3 ready for LFS 7.4 ?

Not without make.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-7.4

[Bruce Dubbs]

Baho Utot wrote:
> Is it possible to build LFS-7.4 on x86_64 without the /lib64 symlink?
>
> I have tried to do so but libstd++ in the chapter 5 tool chain dies.
>
> I would like to build for x86_64 and have the same filesystem layout
> that i686 has ie without the lib64 directories

I really don't know but I can make some guesses.  uname --machine gives
x86_64.  I wouldn't be suprised if some packages that assume a multilib 
system use that value to insist on /lib64  or /usr/lib64.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [lfs-support] Ethernet Card Not Found

[Bruce Dubbs]

Gordon Findlay wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> That's kind of what confuses me about this whole issue... the degree to
>> which discussions here and elsewhere get so heated and angry. It's
>> obviously supremely important to some people - but I don't understand
>> why, when to me it seems such a small thing.

>> I teach Linux, and this sort of change obsoletes a huge amount of material
> that students find in print or on the web. It makes Linux appear capricious
> and flaky in their eyes.

Just to continue the conversation, I would ask those students if it's OK 
that Windows changes all sorts of things with each new version?  Is it 
OK that older systems just stop working due to obsolescence.

I too teach Linux, but I try to give a balanced presentation of the 
advantages and disadvantages of new developments.  Most new developments 
are beneficial to some people.  It's the attempt to force things that I 
object to.  The prime example is merging udev with systemd.  The prime 
example of disregarding that foolishness is LFS.

   -- Bruce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page