[lfs-support] coreutils (lfs-7.0, section 6.23)
zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Fri Jan 13 11:44:11 PST 2012
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:41:36AM -0800, Qrux wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 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...?
Worked for me (from the errata page). Try
[ if ever the links are broken for an LFS or BLFS patch, going
directly to patches/downloads will let you see what is available ]
But as to what the search engine returns, that's outwith my
> * * *
> 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?
Dunno, and for the moment I don't care. I prefer to build with -j1
so that the logs are in order *when* things break (my builds are
development, I expect breakage, either from altering my own scripts,
or from updates to packages). Maybe someone else knows which
packages are like this ?
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-support