More gcc/glibc weirdness

James Iwanek chthon at
Sun Feb 9 16:00:10 PST 2003

James Iwanek wrote:

> Greg Schafer wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 04:18:28PM +0000, James Iwanek wrote:
>>> i dont think this is the issue - when i did the build last night i was
>>> watching all the configure scripts run (scroll lock is so usefull ;-) )
>>> and i definantly remember seeing that message - so while i dissagree
>>> with changing --dissable-shared in ch5 i really think that we need to
>>> change our toolchain build method (there are just way too many anomilies
>>> for this to be coincidence)
>> So you'd rather see the next LFS release go out with an obvious (possibly
>> minor) bug? Your logic makes no sense to me.. or maybe you don't realise
>> the exact meaning of the switch.
>> has some more info.
>> You kept logs of your builds right? Pls show us the outout of the:-
>> checking for DWARF2 unwind info support...
>> for the 1st and 2nd glibc builds.
>> Greg
> unfortunately i didnt make a log unfortunatly the glibc config.log file
> has nothing usefull - but i promise you it definantly said
> no_registry_needed for both builds.
> i think we may be talking at cross points: im not against fixing the
> problem i just think we may have the wrong solution. IMHO i think we
> should hold off the release of lfs-5.0 untill we get the toolchain issues
> sorted out either using your method (Pure LFS) or some other method.
> /me prepares for abuse ;-)
> -----
> Jay

btw - using unfortunatly twice in one sentance probably sounds sarcastic - i
promise it wasnt ment to be (late nights and early mornings dont mix -
which reminds me  that i really need some sleep ;-) ) night

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list