[lfs-support] SOLVED: lfs 7.4 section 5.9.1. Installation of Binutils error: Cannot run C compiled programs
lfs65 at cruziero.com
Thu Nov 14 10:19:07 PST 2013
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:25:35 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com>
> To: LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] SOLVED: lfs 7.4 section 5.9.1. Installation of
> Binutils error: Cannot run C compiled programs
> akhiezer wrote:
> >> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:00:31 -0600
> >> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com>
> >> To: LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] SOLVED: lfs 7.4 section 5.9.1. Installation of
> >> Binutils error: Cannot run C compiled programs
> >>>>> What happens if you do:
> >>>>> (1) highlight & copy the text using the same method - i.e. same mouse buttons,
> >>>>> same source of text (html/pdf/...), same environment (terminal/browser/...),
> >>>>> etc - as when it went wrong.
> >>>>> (2) vi -i
> >>>>> (3) do the paste using the same method - i.e. use same mouse button (I think you
> >>>>> said middle-click), etc - as when it had gone wrong.
> >>>>> (4) save to a filename /tmp/tstpst or similar.
> >>>> You don't need to do that to see what is being pasted. Using vim, just
> >>>> :set list. It displays non-visible characters like \r \t \n etc so you
> >>>> can easily see exactly what you have.
> >>> Yes, for the first part: the suggested list of steps, though, is _obviously_
> >>> for both the user seeing it _and_ for posting to list if necessary. Your
> >>> suggested alternative is impractical in that respect.
> >>> ('strewth...).
> >> You mean like this?
> >> <paste>
> >> A return ^M a tab ^I and a newline$
> >> $
> >> </paste>
> > Not quite sure what, if any, point (or perceived point) are you intending to
> > address there. Apols if being a bit dense on it.
> > You seem to be just (side-)describing something, rather than explicitly hooking
> > into the user-reported issue; again, apols if am being dense on what you're
> > saying or alluding to. Your original wording and its position, were more that of
> > a contradiction, than that of a side- or additional comment; and as such, it
> > seemed a bit misplaced.
> My initial point was to present a method to see non-printing characters
> that may show up in a paste. Nothing else. The followup point was to
> show that that metod could be used to paste into an email message for
> posting to the list.
- ah; thanks for the clarification. I was instead orienting it towards
avoiding a second copy-paste, and instead reading saved-to-disk file into
mailer (which of course is still not foolproof for list-readers to see what
the user was seeing).
> > Anyway, ... the overall goal was to if necessary get that info posted to list
> > via, if possible, only a single copy-paste operation within the 'work'flow, so's
> > to avoid any multiple copy-paste errors layering on top of each other, in case
> > the problem is some weird one with the user's copy-paste mechanism(s) per se.
> I see your point, but I've never seen the issue arise.
> -- Bruce
More information about the lfs-support