[lfs-support] coreutils (lfs-7.0, section 6.23)

Qrux qrux.qed at gmail.com
Fri Jan 13 10:41:36 PST 2012


On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:

>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 03:00:40AM -0800, Qrux wrote:
>>> 
>> Found the problem.  Apparently, coreutils-8.14 (the version for the LFS 7.0 release book) is broken w.r.t. to that specific test.  It's a DST Now, 
> 
> *am* annoyed.  Or at least I would be if I wasn't so calm

> 
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/stable/

As always, Ken, your info was spot-on.  I appreciate your calm.

> BTW - your analysis is sound, but only for those people who have
> had a daylight saving time change.  And you can see my own initial
> notes on this in the archives of this list - that's usually a good
> place to look for issues.

Incidentally, here are my google results from the LFS archive search engine when searching for coreutils-8.14:

1. 5.18. Coreutils-8.14
2. 6.24. Coreutils-8.14
3. coreutils-8.14-i18n-1.patch - Linux From Scratch
4. coreutils-8.14-test_fix-1.patch - Linux From Scratch
5. [LFS Trac] #2945: Coreutils-8.14 - Linux From Scratch

The relevant answer (or at least the one that looks like it ought to apply, based on the errata note):

	* http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/lfs/development/coreutils-8.14-test_fix-1.patch

results in a 404.  You're right that I didn't see the errata.  You're wrong that I didn't look.  I certainly didn't look beyond 5 links, and I'd found the answer already by that point.  I'll check the errata next time before sounding warning bells.  Is it practical to update the search engine results to give valid links...?

* * *

Speaking of errata, I've found a couple of packages that break when running the tests in parallel:

	* gawk
	* flex

Executing the 'make check' with '-j 1' allows the tests to pass.  I suppose this would be covered in the somewhat obscure note buried in 4.5 "About SBUs" where it discusses $MAKEFLAGS:

	"If you run into a problem with a build step, revert back to a single processor build to properly analyze the error messages."

But, I'm wondering if, having the more specific information about which packages failed, if it might be useful to include somewhere for the folks that don't like to build all of LFS with '-j 1' and might want the "Gotcha!" in a more relevant place?

	Q

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/attachments/20120113/2e4804ad/attachment.html>


More information about the lfs-support mailing list