Re: [lfs-support] What the heck do I have to do to get this to JUST WORK?!?!

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 22:22:09 +0100 Michele Bucca wrote: > Il 28 dic 2018 4:23 AM, "Kent Cooper" ha scritto: > At first I had weird permission problems at every turn because my > /etc/fstab was mounting my LFS partition with the noexec flag for some > ridiculous reason. That's probably because

Re: [lfs-support] Announcing Basic BLFS (beta)

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:47:23 +0100 Richard Melville <6tric...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 September 2018 at 13:59, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > On 2018-09-26 12:06 +0100, Hazel Russman wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:25:33 +0100 > > > Ken Moffat wrote: &g

Re: [lfs-support] Announcing Basic BLFS (beta)

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:25:33 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:51:39AM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote: > > > > I just tried to register for one of the dev lists and Firefox played up > > because the link isn't secure. So I tried again with https://

Re: [lfs-support] Announcing Basic BLFS (beta)

secure. So I tried again with https:// and couldn't get a connection. What do I need to do? -- If any members of GCHQ are reading this, shame on you! I fought for your right to belong to a trade union and now you are taking away my right to privacy? Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratc

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 8.3 - Chap 6 - Binutils 2.31.1 test error

test failure for a package is not to be taken seriously. A whole string of them means that something is wrong. -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not to

[lfs-support] Apologies to the list

find multiple copies in my Downloads folder. -- If any members of GCHQ are reading this, shame on you! I fought for your right to belong to a trade union and now you are taking away my right to privacy? Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http

Re: [lfs-support] Info on package bzip2-1.0.6 in LFS 8.2

and try downloading bzip2. It isn't there. The patch is there but not the actual tarball. -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this lis

Re: [lfs-support] Info on package bzip2-1.0.6 in LFS 8.2

or the great work, I will let you know if I run into any > difficulties with the package. > > I leave it to your judgement as to how to address this potentially important > issue. > >   > > Yours sincerely > >   > > Terence Waterhouse > I just checke

[lfs-support] LFS 8.3 rc2 boots OK

for blfs, but I would be grateful if someone could correct the lfs registration for me before I get kicked off that list too. -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information

[lfs-support] LFS 8.2 rc2, 6.31. Bison tests after installing flex

These do not work if you use the original build directory. You need to expand the tarball again and repeat configure and make, then run make check. I suggest "If desired, after installing flex in the next section, bison can be rebuilt and the bison checks run with make check." -- --

[lfs-support] LFS 8.2-rc2: confusing wording in Ch.6 section 21: gcc sanity tests

"References to paths that have components with '-linux-gnu' should be ignored, but otherwise the output of the last command should be: SEARCH_DIR("/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib64") SEARCH_DIR("/usr/local/lib64") SEARCH_DIR("/lib64") SEARCH_DIR("/usr/lib64")

[lfs-support] Build directory for gcc.

or anyone on this list but I'm curious to know why the devs chose to do it this way. -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because

Re: [lfs-support] Kernel bug involving physical to virtual remapping

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:54:19 +0200 Frans de Boer wrote: > >>> However a git bisection showed that this is actually a memory management > >>> issue. The kernel commit that caused the problem is : > >>> [33c2b803edd13487518a2c7d5002d84d7e9c878f] x86/mm: Remove > >>> phys_to_virt() usage in

Re: [lfs-support] Kernel bug involving physical to virtual remapping

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:06:09 +0200 Frans de Boer wrote: > On 07/14/2018 06:56 PM, Hazel Russman wrote: > > Gentlemen, > > > > I was given your contact details by Michael Shell, who has been helping me > > to troubleshoot this problem via the Linux From Scratch sup

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 03:10:49 -0400 Michael Shell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 16:45:36 +0100 > Hazel Russman wrote: > > > The system now boots with acpi on, but I suddenly have mouse problems in > > X. Some mouse functions work and some don't. So this is not a complete >

[lfs-support] Kernel bug involving physical to virtual remapping

e again. I have also tested this on a 4.15 kernel and it works there too. If you want me to carry out any further tests, I would be happy to oblige, but do please bear in mind that I am not an expert, so you will need to give fairly basic instructions. Hazel Russman -- -- http://lists.

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 05:43:55 -0400 Michael Shell wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 06:44:33 +0100 > Hazel Russman wrote: > > > I gather that some remapping that used to be done isn't done any more > > and that's what my machine doesn't like. > > > Haze

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 08:26:01 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:47:50AM -0400, Michael Shell wrote: > > I should have realized that since Hazel was working with the full git tree, > > that he could easily revert any commit within git. Duh! > > > > H ... I think what I was

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:37:47 -0400 Michael Shell wrote: > Hazel, > > Looking again at what you've posted, and the bug report you filed after > you bisected the kernel: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg81646.html > > I'd say it is *not* an acpi problem even though it appears

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:25:29 -0400 Michael Shell wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:06:00 +0800 > Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > Now I only use "initrd" directive to update CPU microcode and fix the > > buggy ACPI DSDT of my laptop (another sad story). > > > Xi, > > If you are also inclined to

Re: [lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 23:03:05 +0800 Xi Ruoyao wrote: > On 2018-06-16 15:16 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > Interestingly gmp and mpfr both identify my machine as > > > "nano-pc-linux-gnu" rather than x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, so Bruce > > > is sort-of right when he calls it a different architecture.

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:25:29 -0400 Michael Shell wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:06:00 +0800 > Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > Now I only use "initrd" directive to update CPU microcode and fix the > > buggy ACPI DSDT of my laptop (another sad story). > > > . > > And as there now seems to

Re: [lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:06:00 +0800 Xi Ruoyao wrote: > On 2018-06-28 01:08 -0400, Michael Shell wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 14:42:47 -0700 > > Paul Rogers wrote: > > > > > If that's true, even with systemd, why is there any need to build an > > > initramfs for a known system? > > I had

Re: [lfs-support] LFS8.1 chapter 5.10 : /tools/bin/gcc is dynamically linked to host linker

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:49:04 +0300 Mohamed Dawod wrote: > HI, > > I hope that some one can help me.. > This is the 7th time i restart LFS building from chapter5 !! > > The problem starts to appear in chapter6.7 (Linux-4.12.7 API Headers) > (/tools/bin/gcc file doesnt exist error) > > The

Re: [lfs-support] linuxfromscratch.org site down?

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:24:50 -0400 Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote: > Hello > > Web site (HTTP) is not responding (> one houre). > Ping (ICMP) is still responding > > Trouble with Apache Server? > > -- > > A bientôt > === > Jean-Marc Pigeon

[lfs-support] Small spelling mistake

In LFS 8.2 sysvinit, chap 6.38: Expat-2.2.5 It says "regession tests". The error is in svn too. -- Hazel -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A:

Re: [lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 15:16:06 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 12:01:14PM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:13:12 -0700 > > Paul Rogers wrote: > > > > Well, I continued and have just signed off a completely normal gcc test:

Re: [lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:13:12 -0700 Paul Rogers wrote: > FWIW, I've built and run LFS-7.7 on a 1.0 GHz VIA C7 "Esther", a Pentium-3 > "work alike". It's a "scalar" core with branch prediction, but none of the > super-scalar out-of-order execution that has become so much of a problem. I >

Re: [lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:26:01 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:33:56AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > On 06/14/2018 05:18 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > > > Maybe we should reinstate the words in some form. > > > > What words? > > > I think Hazel quoted something from

Re: [lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:18:10 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:41:46PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > Because the book targets x86_64 (and to a certain extent x86). On those > > systems the number of failures is very few. The tool chain (binutils, > > glibc, and gcc) is

Re: [lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:11:10 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 06:29:20PM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote: > > Building LFS 8.1 on my Samsung laptop, I was surprised to see a large > > number of math errors in the chapter 6 glibc check: > > > >

[lfs-support] Rather a lot of glibc check errors

, can anyone suggest what parameters I might need to use to avoid a repetition? -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because

[lfs-support] Why specify $LFS_TGT-ar and $LFS_TGT-ranlib when rebuilding GCC?

I'm in the process of upgrading my laptop from LFS 8.0 to 8.1 and I noticed this instruction in the second-pass build of gcc and wondered about it. The previous step rebuilt binutils, so the native ar and ranlib in /tools/bin should be the first ones that the top-level configure script finds if

[lfs-support] LFS8.2: The expect problem

eated i could build several times expect with no error. If this file was lacking, expect fails and points as well to glibc inconsistencies." -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See

Re: [lfs-support] expect5.45.4 error Ubuntu 16.04

kware, I mean, not my one-time bodged up version. -- If any members of GCHQ are reading this, shame on you! I fought for your right to belong to a trade union and now you are taking away my right to privacy? Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linu

Re: [lfs-support] expect5.45.4 error Ubuntu 16.04

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:27:25 +0100 Pierre Labastie wrote: > On 18/03/2018 13:44, Kovalsky RU wrote: > > Help me please with compilling. All test wich in the lfs book 8.2 > > succsesfully. I have search in internet, but no results. > > > >

Re: [lfs-support] Some blfs programs expect /usr/bin/python

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:11:23 -0600 Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >Ken Moffat wrote: > > I admire your optimism that you will be able to build (what I assume > > is) a desktop system without python2. > > Hazel, > > python is mentioned in 176 files in BLFS, but only 42 of those

Re: [lfs-support] Some blfs programs expect /usr/bin/python

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:14:58 +0100 Pierre Labastie <pierre.labas...@neuf.fr> wrote: > On 08/03/2018 10:20, Hazel Russman wrote: > > Python is installed in LFS 8.2 as /usr/bin/python3. While I was building > > harfbuzz in BLFS 8.2, I discovered that the check stage requires

Re: [lfs-support] 8.2-systemd, chapter 6.20: making sense of the gcc test results

n the official check logs, that means that everyone has them, even the LFS developers. That's why the section on checking gcc has a link to those logs. The book also mentions those failures in libstdc++. So you have nothing to worry about. -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.

Re: [lfs-support] Partial explanation for a test fail in sudo

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:54:23 -0600 Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Paul Rogers wrote: > >> Because of the usefulness of sudo in installing packages, it often gets > >> built as an appendix to LFS using the chroot environment. If you do > >> this, you can expect the failure. > > > >

[lfs-support] Partial explanation for a test fail in sudo

For the last three BLFS versions, I have noticed a single failure in the check tests for sudo. The test that fails is testsudoers/test3. I have now discovered that this failure only occurs if the tests are carried out by root in chroot. For an unprivileged user, all tests pass. Because of the

Re: [lfs-support] Difficulties with instruction on 5.8 Libstdc++-7.3.0

; > > I f I try to go forward ignoring the warnings, I get the following error > message: "make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop." - Put it on the list, please. Don't send private emails. If you didn't get this problem from reusing

Re: [lfs-support] Difficulties with instruction on 5.8 Libstdc++-7.3.0

On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 10:11:34 -0500 miguel caldas wrote: > HI, > I'm having difficulties with what to do in point 5.8. > As asked, I changed directory to gcc-7.3.0 directory, but when I tried to > create a "build" directory it wouldn't let me as there was another one

Re: [lfs-support] Problems in "4.2. Creating the $LFS/tools Directory"

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:21:03 +0100 Pierre Labastie wrote: > On 02/03/2018 11:56, miguel caldas wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When I trieed to create the tools symlink this way: > > > > ln -sv $LFS/tools / > > > > > > > > I always got a error message telling that "ln: failed

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 8.1 rc-1. eudev: a suggestion

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 10:32:33 -0600 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > William Harrington wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:56:30 + > > Hazel Russman <hazeldeb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> Most of the commands in this sec

[lfs-support] LFS 8.1 rc-1. eudev: a suggestion

Most of the commands in this section have a prefix setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to /tools/lib but the reason for this is not explained anywhere. May I suggest a brief explanation like: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/tools/lib: this allows the use of the blkid library installed in chapter 5 as part of util-linux.

[lfs-support] LFS 8.1 rc1: section 6.67: libpipeline

This is configured with PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/tools/lib/pkgconfig ./configure --prefix=/usr, which looks to me like an error. The explanation given is: Use pkg-config to obtain the location of the test library metadata built in Section 6.57, “Check-0.12.0”. But since check is now built in the same

[lfs-support] LFS 8.2 rc1: Three glibc failures that I never had before

io/tst-copy_file_range io/tst-copy_file_range-compat io/tst-open_tmpfile Are these a problem? No getaddrinfo failures in this version. -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do

Re: [lfs-support] LFS-8.2-rc1

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:17:49 +0100 "Armin K." <krejzi@email.com> wrote: > On 20.2.2018. 18:49, Hazel Russman wrote: > > I can't find the instructions for building check. Check should come after > > dejagnu, I think. > > > > It's moved to ch

[lfs-support] LFS-8.2-rc1

I can't find the instructions for building check. Check should come after dejagnu, I think. -- If any members of GCHQ are reading this, shame on you! I fought for your right to belong to a trade union and now you are taking away my right to privacy? H Russman --

Re: [lfs-support] A speedup with 4.14 and later kernels (against Meltdown)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:47:33 +0100 Thomas Seeling wrote: > Hallo, > > >> I wonder if that explains the problems I am having with recent > >> kernels. I am running on an old machine without PCID (I just > >> checked) and I cannot boot anything later than the end of series

Re: [lfs-support] A speedup with 4.14 and later kernels (against Meltdown)

ad somewhere that there may be an incompatibility between newer kernels and gcc-7. Is this the case? -- Hazel Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Bec

Re: [lfs-support] [blfs-support] Page Table Isolation

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:13:16 + Ken Moffat wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:16:18PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: > > People who follow the news will be aware that big changes have been > > rushed into the linux kernel (and changes are/have been also rolled > > out by

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 8.1 no module loaded

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 19:03:51 +0100 Axel wrote: > Dear all, > > > if I try lsmod in the started LFS I can't see any module. > > There's no /proc/modules file. > > If I go into the "chroot" LFS I can see modules with lsmod and /proc > > Can you give me a tipp? > > I

Re: [lfs-support] 8.1-systemd Ch. 8.3 Linux-4.12.7: Error during make?

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:40:49 -0600 Hans Malissa wrote: > Hi, > > ‘make defconfig’ did a very good job, thanks for the advice. My idea of using > .config of the host distribution was completely wrong. LFS is up and running > now, and booting is much faster than with my host

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 8.2-rc2. Coreutils tests - only one fails now

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 11:45:40 -0500 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hazel Russman wrote: > > According to the Book, there are two expected failures: test-getlogin > > and date-debug. date-debug fails, but it was the only failure reported > > on my system.

[lfs-support] LFS 8.2-rc2. Coreutils tests - only one fails now

According to the Book, there are two expected failures: test-getlogin and date-debug. date-debug fails, but it was the only failure reported on my system. test-getlogin doesn't seem to exist any more. I couldn't find it anywhere in the test output. -- H Russman --

Re: [lfs-support] :Re: LFS 8.1 rc2. Binutils: one unexpected failure

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:13:30 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > > My log suggests that the ld tests are run from various > ld-descriptivename.exp files, but in the circumstances that is moot. > > I just checked my -rc2 log to check my memory, and discovered that > one of the

[lfs-support] Building against libncurses: why is there a difference between readline and bc?

At this stage in chapter 6, the only ncurses library available is in /tools/lib. The build instructions for bc create a symbolic link to this library from what will be its final destination in /usr/lib. But readline, which also uses ncurses, is built before creating this link. It looks directly

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 8.1 rc2. Binutils: one unexpected failure

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:55:27 +0100 Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 06:57:53PM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote: > > One of the ld tests times out. > > > > Running /sources/binutils-2.29/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp ... > > WA

[lfs-support] LFS 8.1 rc2. Binutils: one unexpected failure

One of the ld tests times out. Running /sources/binutils-2.29/ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp ... WARNING: program timed out FAIL: PLT PC-relative offset overflow check -- H Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html

Re: [lfs-support] (no subject)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:02:44 +0200 Kuba wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:15:42PM +, Igor B wrote: > > Could i build lfs system on usb disk?If can what i must write? I don't see why not. But by default, these drives always have vfat filesystems on them. You'll have to

Re: [lfs-support] Problem during Make of GCC-6.3.0

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 15:23:15 -0400 Mark Gregory <7605mgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > To me, it appears the problem is it can't find a C++ preprocessor. I am > installing GCC-6.3.0 and I thought it was supposed to provide the > package it is looking for. It seems like a circular reasoning loop to

Re: [lfs-support] Issue on boot for LFS system

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:09:43 +0200 "John D. Hefele" wrote: > Hello lfs support community! > > I have recently went through the majority of the lfs book, and up until > the final step, everything has gone great. At every opportunity I tested > the system, and did not

Re: [lfs-support] Perl-5.7.3

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 02:01:17 +0100 Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 06:33:30PM -0400, Isaac D. Cohen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm now up to section 5.33.1 (compiling texinfo) and the configure > > script gives me a strange error: > > > > checking for perl...

Re: [lfs-support] Question about variables in the terminal

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:33:35 -0400 "Isaac D. Cohen" wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry if I'm bothering everyone too much lately. I just have a short > question this time. I continued on in the book and it says to set > the variables CC, AR, and RANLIB. So I'm wondering whether that is

[lfs-support] On running "make check"

This is a bit of a philosophical ramble. I just wondered how the developers feel about it. I have noticed that there are often posts on this list and in the LQ LFS forum about check failures. They seem to cause a lot of anxiety. Usually the poster is told that the checks are there for the

Re: [lfs-support] Testing toolchain after first pass

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:05:50 -0400 "Isaac D. Cohen" wrote: > Also Pierre Labastie said that the terminal will check at anything in $PATH > for the program I'm running. Rather than recompiling I simply added > /tools/bin to my $PATH variable. > > It works now! Thank you

Re: [lfs-support] Error when compiling gcc, can't find /usr/include

On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:19:18 -0400 "Isaac D. Cohen" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently started building an LFS and I a few questions. I am using > LFS book version 8.0. On page 36 before building binutils (pass 1) > the book says that all sources should be put in a

Re: [lfs-support] Systemd Boot Issues

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:44:19 -0700 Paul Rogers wrote: > > I'm trying to debug the boot problems as much as I can on my own, > > since that's a good way to learn. > > Agreed. And in what follows, note that I haven't done systemd > and won't. > > > I also won't use a

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS on a Samsung laptop. Hey, no more segfaults!

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:49:20 -0400 Michael Shell wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 19:24:55 - > "William Harrington" wrote: > > > gcc -### -march=native -E /usr/include/stdlib.h 2>&1 | grep > > "/usr/libexec/gcc/.*cc1" > >

[lfs-support] Possible typo in section 6.50: coreutils non-root tests

[quote]The test-getlogin test is known to fail on a virtual console such as the chroot environment here, but passes if run in an X terminal. [/quote] The test that always fails (it has failed in every LFS build I've ever done!) is stty-pairs. grep couldn't find any reference to "test-getlogin"

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:10:09 -0700 Paul Rogers wrote: > Clocking 1.3GHz. Opinions may vary, but frankly, with only 1GB RAM, I > see some disadvantage to running x86-64 mode with the extra space > required/wasted in addressing. AISI, 64-bit mode is really an advantage >

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:45:07 -0500 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hazel Russman wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:50:29 -0700 Paul Rogers > > <paulgrog...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > >> I'd still like to know which Nano CPU you have and ho

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:50:29 -0700 Paul Rogers wrote: > I'd still like to know which Nano CPU you have and how much RAM. There > are things that can be done. After a long gap, I returned to the laptop to complete the glibc installation.To satisfy your curiosity, I ran

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:26:38 +0100 Michele Bucca wrote: > Il 22 mar 2017 5:01 PM, "Bruce Dubbs" ha scritto: > > No, you should have used GPT instead of the ancient MSDOS partition table. > > Go buy a new hard disk. They are cheap. > > > >

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:07:21 -0700 Paul Rogers wrote: > > I followed my original plan and completed the glibc build yesterday. > > It proved unexpectedly difficult. I had two segfaults, the first time > > in configure and the second in make. I have never seen those

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:58:58 -0700 Paul Rogers wrote: > > Well, I *think* you can do that. The ways I've done it in the past > have worked. But I've been careful of basic hardware, MoBo/CPU, > compatibility. I've got an LFS-6.1(?) made for a i586 on a K6/2, 6.6 > for

Re: [lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:27:21 -0800 Paul Rogers wrote: > > I would like to build LFS-8.0 on my laptop using the toolkit I > > created for my desktop build. I tarred it up before making the final > > adjustments to gcc and ld. I have never done this before and I would > >

[lfs-support] Building LFS with an existing toolkit

I would like to build LFS-8.0 on my laptop using the toolkit I created for my desktop build. I tarred it up before making the final adjustments to gcc and ld. I have never done this before and I would like to run through my proposed procedure so that more experienced people can tell me if I'm

[lfs-support] Confirming a bug in 8.0 found by someone else

An LQ user called Luridis has reported a couple of bugs, one of which I can now confirm. The man-db installation now assigns ownership of /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/man-db.conf to man:man rather than man:root. Consequently the sed to convert it to root:root needs to be adjusted. He also reports a

Re: [lfs-support] LFS 8.0 chapter 8.26: Coreutils tests

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:42:39 + Mark Pokorny <iridium...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hazel Russman wrote: > >> > >> Minor niggle: I got a failure when running test-getlogin on an Xterm. > >> According to the book, this should pass (it's known to fail on a con

[lfs-support] LFS 8.0 chapter 8.26: Coreutils tests

Minor niggle: I got a failure when running test-getlogin on an Xterm. According to the book, this should pass (it's known to fail on a console). -- H Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above

Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.17 GCC final tests: small typo

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:38:18 -0600 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hazel Russman wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:28:07 -0600 > > Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hazel Russman wrote: > >>> In the s

Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.17 GCC final tests: small typo

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:28:07 -0600 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hazel Russman wrote: > > In the search paths, the book says: > > "References to paths that have components with '-linux-gnu' should be > > ignored, but otherwise the o

[lfs-support] LFS 8.0 Section 6.10 possible typo (or else confusing statement)

In the sanity tests for glibc, the book says: [Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2] Note that /lib is now the prefix of our dynamic linker. The output is as shown but the explanation is confusing. The linker is indeed in /lib but the output actually says /lib64,

Re: [lfs-support] Why does the udevadm settle command drive my video card crazy?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:38:56 -0600 "Douglas R. Reno" <renodr2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Hazel Russman <hazeldeb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > I'm replying to my own post just to tidy things up. It turns out that > >

Re: [lfs-support] Why does the udevadm settle command drive my video card crazy?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:31:36 + Hazel Russman <hazeldeb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just completed LFS on my laptop, a Samsung machine with Vaio > electronics. The video card is a Vaio Chrome 9. > > I already knew that this card has compatibility issues. I had > problems a

[lfs-support] Why does the udevadm settle command drive my video card crazy?

I've just completed LFS on my laptop, a Samsung machine with Vaio electronics. The video card is a Vaio Chrome 9. I already knew that this card has compatibility issues. I had problems after installing NuTyX, because the NuTyX initrd tried to set up a framebuffer console which the card

Re: [lfs-support] copy include files when kernelupdate?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:48:11 +0100 Thomas Seeling wrote: > Hallo, > > > one step of LFS preparation is the copying of linux header files to > system include directories. > > Should this process be repeated after a kernel update? > Or only after a major update (e.g.

Re: [lfs-support] Compilation Error at Chapter 5.5. GCC-6.2.0 - Pass 1

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:45:22 +0100 Markus wrote: > Hey folks, > > I'm following the book for education reasons, having 10+ years experience on > linux systems as a home user and family administrator. > > At chapter 5.5.1. Installation of Cross GCC I have finished

[lfs-support] Diffutils test-update-copyright now passes

Here's another test that seems to have been fixed upstream since the 7.10 book was finalised. -- H Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list.

[lfs-support] Gettext tests: they all work

The book warns that some of these tests fail due to unmet dependencies. I didn't see any failures. -- H Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this

[lfs-support] inetutils-1.9.4: libls.sh test works in this version

In the book, it says that this test does not work in chroot. It does now! -- H Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up

Re: [lfs-support] glibc tests on a VIA nano processor: 2 unexpected failures

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:10:06 -0600 "Douglas R. Reno" <renodr2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Hazel Russman <hazeldeb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:55:56 -0600 > > Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gma

[lfs-support] Why do we delete files from dummy compilations carried out as sanity checks?

While building toolchains in both chapter 5 and chapter 6, occasional dummy programs are compiled and the output checked for consistency. The instructions say to delete them and all related files afterwards. But all this work is being done in temporary directories created by tar, which will

Re: [lfs-support] Is the style of kernel booting message correct?

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 17:21:02 +0600 ssmtpmailtesting ssmtpmailtesting wrote: > >>That is not correct. It is set in /lib/services/init-functions, See the > >>function log_success_msg() starting at line 569. > > >> It is specific to LFS, but you are free to change it

Re: [lfs-support] New directory layout and FHS 3.0

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 23:47:45 +0100 Frans de Boer wrote: > I have said that I will forward some patches to get rid of the > [...]/lib64 notions after I have tested my older patches against the > newest sources. > > I have created several source code changes and tested them,

Re: [lfs-support] How can I install binutils and gcc with one pass to build temporary system?

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:25:45 +0600 ssmtpmailtesting ssmtpmailtesting wrote: > What does it mean by cross compiler or cross compiling? It means compiling for a different computer. In LFS however, we trick gcc into thinking that it's compiling for a different computer

Re: [lfs-support] Stuck at 2,7 mounting the new partition

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:17:05 +0100 David D wrote: > Hello everyone, this is my very first message on a mailing list so please > excuse me if something wrong. > I searched through archive and couldn't find an answer maybe because it is > a very silly issue, but it is

  1   2   >