2.4.1-Balu1 pre-chroot (LONG)
Thomas 'Balu' Walter
tw at itreff.de
Thu Oct 12 11:47:21 PDT 2000
+-Gerard Beekmans-(gerard at linuxfromscratch.org)-[12.10.00 13:46]:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> > Okay - here is my up-to-chroot-description of 2.4.1...
> Uh oh ;)
> Again Balu your reports are invaluable to me. Glad you take the time almost
> every release to go through it.
8) I'll give my very best :)
> > Whish from me (to be discussed):
> > Get the prompts back (I don't like the style with &&... - even if I use
> > it usually, it looks wierd. I agree that cutnpaste is easier then and I
> > see that you have less to edit while updating packages ;)
> Those are my main reasons for removing the prompts yes. I agree it looks
> prettier with the prompts in place, but I believe the removal of them is
> worth it. I'm reluctant to add them again, unless there are of course a lot
> of people who want them back. If you want, propose a way to make copy&paste
> as user friendly as it is now.
Okay - forget the prompts, but what about deleting the &&s at the end -
I am not sure and can not try it at the moment, but I remember having
cutnpasted multiple lines including returns (this works like typing a
command if another is not ready yet).
But I am not sure if this is a nicer and recommended way...
> > Installing Bash:
> > failed first, after installing libncurses5-dev and
> > libncurses5-dbg it worked
> > -----
> > install-info: unknown option `--dir-file=/mnt/lfs/usr/info/dir'
> > usage: install-info [--version] [--help] [--debug] [--maxwidth=nnn]
> > [--section regexp title] [--infodir=xxx] [--align=nnn]
> > [--calign=nnn] [--quiet] [--menuentry=xxx] [--info-dir=xxx]
> > [--keep-old] [--description=xxx] [--test] [--remove] [--]
> > filename
> > make: *** [install] Error 1
> > make: [install] Error 2 (ignored)
> That's because Debian's texinfo package is hopelessly outdated.
:( What goes wrong then - the info-pages are not installed?
> > Installing Bzip2:
> > Reading the man-page I think "make -f -" would be the correct
> > way to get the Makefile from stdin.
> It's my opinion that -f /dev/stdin is clearer than -f -
> Both are ok (since that's just what make does anyways - use /dev/stdin if you
> provide it with a dash)
On that Sparc IPC I was playing with (and which is somehow broken at the
moment - no time to look at it) I had the problem that /dev/stdin did
not work, don't ask me why, but changing it to - helped. And since the
man-page says "-" for /dev/stdin I thought we should replace it...
> > Installing Linux Kernel
> > I took 2.2.17 instead of 2.2.16, which is fixed in 2.4.2 now.
> > -----
> > /mnt/lfs/usr/src/linux/include/linux/coda_opstats.h is empty
> > /mnt/lfs/usr/src/linux/include/linux/dasd.h is empty
> Not to worry about i think...but I'll keep an eye on it next time I build an
> LFS system (tomorrow)
I did not worry about that really, but I was wondering why the
kernel-developers create empty include-files ;)
> > I had problems cutnpasting from w3m here - spaces were wierd
> > characters and were not displayed after cutnpaste - I looked
> > into the html-source and found es - why are they used
> > here?
> If I don't add the (Non Breaking SPace) Netscape or most other
> browsers refuse to put extra spaces. It might insert one space but ignores
> extra whitespace. Because the commands are broken up over multiple lines,
> indenting them so you can see that they belong to one and the same command is
> better. That can be done with . No browser should give you weird
> characters, this stems back from the HTML-1.0 era and should not pose any
> problems....got a proposal to fix it perhaps?
I agree, but then I thought that w3m (and lynx?) does that to avoid the
sentences being wordwrapped at the end of the line - ASCII-255 is just
another space-character, which the shell does not like though...
> > What about creating configparms with:
> > cat <<EOF >configparms
> > # Begin configparms
> > slibdir=/lib
> > sysconfdir=/etc
> > # End configparms
> > EOF
> > The echo-line came too late ;-)
> > make is too fast - I can not see if I get "character 45" errors...
> > Is it bad to apply the patch anyway? I did not - and I think I
> > did not have the errors (00-Errors didn't show them)
> No, it won't hurt to apply the patch. I'll add a line to find out what bash
> version is being used so you can anticipate the need of the patch before you
> start building LFS. That sounds logical doens' it? Then you might wonder why
> I never added it before. I wonder it too. I know it has crossed my mind on
> several ocassions...
=) - I was not sure why that patch had to be done anymore...
> > Creating passwd and group files
> > Create the group-file like configparms above?
> Interesting idea, I can add the echo line underneath it like I did with
> configparms now.
the echo-lines are not needed anymore then (create the passwd with echo)
and the group with <<EOF... -
> > Debugging symbols and compiler optimizations
> > What do I take for Thunderbirds? -mcpu=?
> > The gcc-info pages say that `-march=CPU TYPE' implies `-mcpu=CPU
> > TYPE'. So we don't need -mcpu=?
Do we need -mcpu?
> > Creating $LFS/root/.bash_profile
> > Again - create that "cat <<EOF >file"-style?
> > Ah - here we have "yyy"...?
> Ah there the yyy's went to, I knew they were supposed to be somewhere.
Yes, but they are not needed, because the same value is used both times
;), and anyway - -march implies -mcpu, so leave that out.
> Sure, the echo (or cat version) can be added below the contents of the file.
No need to echo then - the file is created with that statement... (and
no extra writing of the file-content).
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev