goekhan_ibis at yahoo.de
Tue Jul 6 08:03:34 PDT 2004
Ken Moffat schrieb:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Gökhan Ibis wrote:
> Review chapter 4, Final Preparations'. In particular, did you have
> /tools/bin: at the front of your PATH when this happened ? Also, did
> you remember the `set +h' ? - I guess forgetting that would cause bash
> to remember it had been used for gcc when you built binutils at the
>>*) after resetting $PATH to its old value I removed gcc296 from
>>/usr/bin....still getting the same config.log as mentioned above
> That I don't understand. But I hope you have some sort of working gcc
> in /usr/bin (your "I removed" comment scares me) - first you need to
> try to identify what you missed, or did differently, in the early
> stages. Then, you probably need to go back to the beginning because
> from here it sounds as if everything you've built so far used gcc-2.96,
> which is not what you wanted.
> Other things you might want to check - is the /tools symlink correct
> (i.e. pointing to /mnt/lfs/tools). Did you do all of 'adjusting the
> toolchain'. Or maybe at some point you became root to try to fix
> things, and never went back to being user lfs ?
thank you for your help...a few minutes ago someone from
irc.linuxfromscratch solved my problem, but i want to mail the solution,
because someone else could also have the same or a similar problem.
my tryings to solve the problem weren't bad but the point is that I
never deleted config.cache and config.log....after any changes I should
have deleted these two files before retrying to configure.
More information about the lfs-support