LFS-6.6, Stage2, glibc, nscd.c:442

Paul Rogers paulgrogers at fastmail.fm
Wed Jun 2 18:07:44 PDT 2010


> My understanding is that Paul came upon an error while building 6.6
> from 6.1. When he reported this error here the overall reply was that
> he should try a more recent build to start with. Paul objects because
> the 6.6 book stated 6.1 would suffice.

Actually, 6.1 mostly exceeds the 6.6 HSR's.  The failure is linux-
2.6.11.12. Many of the requirements, gcc-3.0.1, are exceeded in 6.1,
gcc-3.4.3.

> I think Paul does have a point. I'm not suggesting the book should be
> tested against every possible running kernel version but if the
> general consensus is that a 6.3 system is required than the book
> should state 6.3 until proven otherwise.

I'm not either.

I think someone on the development team should have a "trailer" system
with a truly minimum set of package versions.  This should be the base
system on which installation is verified.  (OK, I use old hardware, old
systems.  I'd like the barrier of host system requirements to be as low
as possible.)  From the "previous" base, as new packages require
prerequisite upgrades, those are upgraded on the trailer.  But the goal
of the trailer should be to have only what is absolutely required, and
those should be as low as possible--whether or not those match any
previous LFS release.

> Well, that would make sense. I'm not sure it would satisfy him,
> however.

Mostly it would.  I'd really like to see the development methodology
changed to eliminate this flaw, as described above.  I've had a career
in computing and system development.  I think I understand these issues
from the inside--albeit as a paid professional.  I don't think I'm being
unreasonable.

> Just out of curiosity, do you need a nameserver caching daemon? Could
> you live with out it?

That's the hilarious part, I don't!  At least not with my current
systems.  I have a LEAF-Bering peripheral firewall acting as a DNS
relay.  On the other hand, it should be made, because I, or anybody I
gave the system to, might sometime NOT have another DNS relay.  But
there's no way to bypass it without hacking it, and everybody here
would be aghast at that.  ;-)
-- 
Paul Rogers
paulgrogers at fastmail.fm
http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/
Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates."
(I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-)

  	

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service




More information about the lfs-support mailing list