LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon May 31 11:24:24 PDT 2010
Paul Rogers wrote:
>> My advice would be to use jhalfs for some arbitrary version of the
>> book that you choose and just let it run. We know that LFS-6.3 works
>> because it has been used a lot from the last LiveCD. That would be a
>> good candidate for an intermediate release.
> No, if I decide to "double my fun", I'll make 6.3 a "normal" upgrade
> from my current 6.1 version. I am determined to have a consistent path.
> That's fine. But your book's HSR, that little script that's included,
> tells me, except for the kernel version, my 6.1 system is "good to go."
The Host System requirements may indeed be too low for LFS 6.6, but I am
reluctant to change them based on your input because you have made lots
of changes. You claim your scripts encompass the book's commands, but I
don't have the time or desire to check that, especially when we have an
automated way to build.
If you want to help, fine. Give us definitive reasons to change the
book. That includes validation of your findings using our tools.
You don't need to change what you have. It's easy enough to clone
directories and to do testing with that.
> What's the HSR if not exactly that? Granted, it seems there wasn't
> enough exploration done to verify what gcc/kernel was required, as
> linuxfan recently posted.
You seem to be demanding perfection from a small group of volunteers.
We don't claim to be perfect. There are too many combinations to check
old versions of the packages against the latest version.
> Now that you have information that gcc-4.2 is required to compile the
> stack protector kernel code,
Where did that come from? I don't see a reference.
> I expect at least an erratum to the HSR is called for.
You don't have any standing to 'expect' anything from us. You can
suggest, but with your attitude, my reaction is to push back and say no,
even if that's wrong.
More information about the lfs-support