journal

Robert Baker bobb at netslyder.net
Mon Sep 3 15:35:15 PDT 2007


Indeed it seems rather important to follow this suggestion. When I first built an LFS system I used a suse system to build with. I can't remember the exact version, but it was some time ago before the novell buyout. Anyhow that build went fine. Since then I have taken to using debian on a few of my systems. I began a build friday using one of those systems. This ended in failures on glibc during building the temporary system. I went round and round looking for problems in other parts of the build leading up to glibc. Untill finally I decided to boot from an LFS live cd. Low and behold the compile completed without error.

Anyhow it would seem a lot of heartache would have been avoided had I simply started from the cd to begin with. Sometimes these things just make me feel like an idiot.  :)
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Connolly <robert at linuxfromscratch.org>

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:31:55 
To:Hardened LFS Development List <hlfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
Subject: Re: journal


LFS (6.x), and HLFS, are the only supported host system for HLFS, partially 
because of things like this, and also because of trust. We want the host 
system to have Scrt1.o, for example, and to expect the Glibc tests pass the 
host system kernel should be vanilla, and then there's the bug below. Using 
LFS or HLFS as the host system is the only way to be sure that the host 
system is going to support the build of largely vanilla packages. Despite 
saying this, I've never had a problem with Slackware.

robert

On Monday September 3 2007 10:24:37 am goodoldmarty at gmail.com wrote:
> >> > I don't believe this is exclusive to my system, but that is possible.
> >> > Otherwise, these issues are really a bit much for me to debug.
> >> >
> >> > Marty B.
> >
> > FWIW, I got a similar error from installing a distro (not hlfs)on a
> > preformatted ext3 drive which I got rid of by removing  and recreating
> > the journal. I wonder if ext3 has broken compatibility with earlier
> > versions recently?
>
> I found some traffic on this issue in the LKML and GLIBC list. It seems
>  some patches have introduced structure incompatabilities with previous
> EXT3 filesystems. However; Ext3 does appear to work fine on a native
> hlfs filesystem. I think this warrants disclosure in the book.
>
> Marty B



-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list