Question About Unstable "Host system requirements"
LFS-User at mcmurchy.com
Mon Jun 14 22:47:14 PDT 2004
On Tue, June 15, 2004 at 00:03 -0500, Joel Miller wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > [snip]
> > This is the output from "cat /proc/version"
> > Linux version 2.6.4 (rml at rmlinux) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010315
> > (release)) #1 Thu Mar 18 18:19:32 CST 2004
> > I read a couple of messages saying the kernel compiled with
> > 2.95.3 is troublesome. Is this in fact a problem?
> Yes. This is the cause of your failures. The good news is that I am told
> that the NPTL binaries built should be fine. It's only that while you
> are running a 2.6 kernel compiled with gcc-2.x the testsuite will fail.
> I wouldn't worry about it and just move on.
Thanks. I'm convinced now. I continued following an old
thread from Hackers and found where Zack says this:
> > I KNOW you need 2.6.X compiled with gcc 3, though.
> Actually not. The glibc testsuite will segfault all over the place, but
> the final binaries will be exactly the same as if they have been built on
> a real "working" system. Everything will be grand once the user has
> I wouldn't put that information in the book though, not in a million years.
Seems to me *something* should be put in the book. The
"Host system requirements" doesn't mention the need to have
your kernel compiled with gcc-3.x, and the glibc page says,
in a highlighted "Important" box, "The test suite for Glibc
in this section is considered critical. Our advice is to
not skip it under any circumstance."
Well, I didn't skip it and it segfaults all over the place.
Something needs to be said in the book. My 2.6.4 system is
LFS and was built by the book. The kernel upgrade was done
following the 2.6 "How-to" and "Migration" hints. I just now
looked at Kris van Rens newest 2.6 migration hint (waiting
for Tushar to move it into hints) and all of these documents
say to use gcc-2.95.3.
I suggest in the "Host requirements page" to mention
something about glibc's failure of the NPTL tests if your
kernel is compiled with 2.95.3. As Zack mentioned, it's
probably not prudent to say it's OK and not to worry about
it, but it needs to be mentioned.
More information about the lfs-dev