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

Mike McCarty Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net
Wed Jun 2 21:39:36 PDT 2010


Paul Rogers wrote:

I agree that the problem you have uncovered is worth pursuing
down to root cause. Until we understand the root cause, we
can't be sure it won't come up again in the future. When it
is understood, then either a prevention in the sense of what
a minimal HSR is can be done, or a prevention in the sense of
a patch to the build can be done.

[...]

[I wrote]

>> Well, you are the one with the problem building Linux the way you
>> want. Others have pointed out a way to do what you want. You don't
> 
> Doubling my work by building a 6.3 system first?  Yes.  Is it a wonder
> if I might find a workaround like others have found might be appealing?

No, you do not have to build 6.3 at all. You only have to use 6.3.
I'm fairly certain that 6.3 is capable of building 6.6, ahd you
can use 6.3 without building it.

[...]

>> You've been pointed to a simple way to achieve the goal of building a
>> working Linux machine using your hardware as-is, but you won't do it.
> 
> Too soon to say.  I won't willingly double my work if there is an
> effective workaround.  That's not known yet.  If it doesn't work, then
> I'll have to back-up and go another path that may BE more work.  "Unto
> the morrow is the evil thereof."
> 
>> If your machine is capable of booting off of a CD-ROM, or can boot off
>> of a floppy and is capable of reading a CD-ROM, then you can run 6.3
>> and do what you want. Does your hardware satisfy
> 
> No, I can't.  Look, if having a running system was all that was
> important, I could just pop in the LXF DVD I got yesterday and have
> KUbuntu-
> 10.4 running in minutes.  I'm not doing that.  Why?  We have different
> goals.  It's important to me to have a consistent path.

That's what I said above, and you disagreed with me. Now you seme
to agree.

You and LFS have different goals. You want to use your 6.1 build
to create a 6.6 build, and that's not an LFS goal. Since 6.3
works to build 6.6 (I think, anyway), and LFS has provided a 6.3
build to do that with, they've accomplished their goal.

>> those requirements? I'm sure there are several here who are willing to
>> get you going that way. I know I am. I've built a running LFS system
>> by doing that.
> 
> Without having even looked at the LFS-6.3 book yet, I've learned enough
> from LFS installs in the past that I don't anticipate a straightforward
> install would be beyond me.  Famous last words, eh? ;-)

Why do you have this fixation on building 6.3? Nobody but you
has mentioned building 6.3 as a part of the solution.

If your goal is to get 6.6 running on your machine, then there
is a clear path to do that using an available 6.3 build which
can almost surely be made to run on your machine. If you insist
upon using 6.1 to do the build, then I think it is reasonable
to say that you are partially on your own. I don't mean to say
left flopping in the breeze.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!



More information about the lfs-support mailing list