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

  Hi Paul,

  You got a lot more out of them on this problem then i did.

  I think it just boils down to the fact that they've put all this
  time and effort into producing the, always, latest version of the
  book AND it works for them.  Bringing the book to usability must
  be time consuming enough, doing the support work just sucks the
  remaining life out of them.

  Most of the posters with problems do seem to have,
  for whatever reason, strayed from the path of righteousness
  and not followed the book closely enough.  After hearing
  their confessions the priests, i'm sorry i meant support staff,
  tell the sinner, oops, i meant poster with the problem, to
  utter the prayer "rm -rf /mnt/lfs/*" at their command prompt
  and that their penance is to start the book from the beginning.
  And for some, who return to the beginning, the error resolves
  itself and they compile their way to the end of the book and
  the booting of their spanking new lfs Bk.6.6 system.

  But you sir are not of that "some".

  You are of the "undefined reference to '__stack_chk_guard'".  Souls
  who exist in the darkness at the edge of the circle of light cast
  by the book.  What chain of bonds in the darkness keep us from
  entering the light? We cannot see.  We call, post actually, for help
  but the priests say our build environments are not worthy of the book.

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

On 31 May 2010 17:35, Paul Rogers <paulgrogers <at> fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>  What you are overlooking is that "doing it my way" comes with "when
>>  it breaks, I get to keep all the pieces".
>
> What a curious thing to write in a SUPPORT forum of a LINUX distribution
> with the motto, "YOUR DISTRO, YOUR RULES."  I can't interpret that in
> any way that seems to be helpful.  This is Linux, it has always been
> thus.  That's hardly original, I've seen essentially the same admonition
> in many of the FOSS packages that make a useful system.  In point of
> fact, I have completely replaced the init.d/rc code with my own from the
> principle, "I know what I started, if it's to be stopped I'll stop it
> when I leave."  Each numbered runlevel assumes it was the first one
> started, and will be the last one running before shutdown.  "From dust I
> came, to dust I will return."  I don't need lock file semaphores to
> communicate between run levels what has been started.  It works very
> well, all the pieces are mine, and none of them are broken thank you
> very much, even if LSB incompliant.  But otherwise the core of my build
> scripts come straight from the book.  I think it's highly desireable to
> have a core Linux/GNU base that's a clean, known quantity.  The key
> organizing paradigm of "my distro" is KISS.

 You have, I think, mentioned that you are using package management.
You are also using a much older host system than most people have
available.  When you make your own path, nobody has any experience
of the differences..  It might be an interesting intellectual exercise to
tear it apart and eventually discover where the problem lies, but it's
not a good use of our time.

 And no, the phrase is not supposed to be original.  It's a statement of

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

On 1 June 2010 00:11,  <x2164 <at> lycos.com> wrote:

>
>  In my arrogance i drank of the ALFS.
>
>  Like a siren's song the jhalfs scripts drew me in.  Only teasing me
>  with a few trials to test my love before providing, with barely a
>  touch of the keyboard, a new bootable LFS system with a
>  blfs_root directory.
>
>  And BLFS hell is where i now reside.  If only i'd known.
>
>  Damn you XOrg_7 package and your infinite loop segfault!
>

The blfs-support list is open even to the unclean (if it wasn't,
*I* would never get any help there!).  As always, there is no
guarantee of *any* response, let alone of useful responses,
but google doesn't think you've posted there.

Doing your own research is good, but if it doesn't bring a
resolution it's always worth asking in case anyone else has
already solved it.

And yes, segfaults in the xorg server are indeed nasty things
to debug and I've never managed it..  If you post on
blfs-support, remember to mention your graphics hardware,
and the versions of xf86-video-whichever and xorg-server
that you are using).

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

x2164 <at> lycos.com wrote:

That was a very entertaining post.  Thanks.

On a more serious note, we do try to address problems that come up.  The 
  issue is that we have seen lots of posts where the final resolution is 
"oops, it was my error, not the book's".   (Which you humorously noted.)

The reason we ask for a "standard" build is so we can try to duplicate 
the problem.  For instance, I cannot build the 'standard' -dev book 
right now because the kernel panics when built with the default 
configuration on x86_64 hardware.

See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44129

I don't get much response from the gcc team, but I understand why.  I 
suspect they can't duplicate the problem, although there have been 
reports of the same problem by others.

Unlike LFS, they are even paid to develop gcc (but not by me of course).

There are fundamentally two general situations where we change LFS: 
when there is an upstream fix or when we can duplicate the problem.  To 
do otherwise would cause even more problems.

As far as nscd.c goes, the real problem is to determine why some systems 
appear to need -lssp and others don't.   Then a fix the glibc build 
system can be made.  Unfortunately, the only ones that can do that are 
those that can duplicate the problem.

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

On 5/31/10, x2164 <at> lycos.com <x2164 <at> lycos.com> wrote:
>
>   Most of the posters with problems do seem to have,
>   for whatever reason, strayed from the path of righteousness
>   and not followed the book closely enough.

Quoth the creator:
Gerard: Read the book we wrote for our users. But, don’t be afraid to
deviate from it. After all, that’s the whole point of the project: to
make a system for yourself, not according to somebody else’s
specifications.
http://www.crazyengineers.com/gerard-beekmans-building-linux-from-scratch/
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

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

Quoth the creator:
> Gerard: Read the book we wrote for our users. But, don’t be afraid to
> deviate from it. After all, that’s the whole point of the project: to
> make a system for yourself, not according to somebody else’s
> specifications.
> http://www.crazyengineers.com/gerard-beekmans-building-linux-from-scratch/
>    

As true as that is, of course, it is sometimes terribly difficult to 
support individual users who are doing their own thing (straying from 
the standard path is unfortunately not always for the faint of heart). 
Others have said it: unless we can duplicate the problem somebody faces 
doing things slightly different, support can be hard to provide. Of 
course we all love a challenge and with time and patience we often do 
get to the bottom of things and offer workarounds or book rewrites to 
cope with it.

Ciao,
Gerard

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

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

On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 09:35 -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 00:36 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >  What you are overlooking is that "doing it my way" comes with "when
> >  it breaks, I get to keep all the pieces".
> 
> What a curious thing to write in a SUPPORT forum of a LINUX distribution
> with the motto, "YOUR DISTRO, YOUR RULES."

"Your distro, your rules" - but going along with that, there's the
unstated "your rules, your problems". There's nothing wrong with
exploring uncharted waters, but if you sail into the middle of "here be
dragons", you can't expect to stop and ask for directions...

Simon.

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

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

On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 19:11 -0400, x2164 <at> lycos.com wrote:
>   So Paul, what i really need to say is "that if it breaks, you get to
>   keep the pieces" but maybe, more important, "if it doesn't break,
>   you still get to keep the pieces".

Well yes, that's true. But then, LFS is a natural path for those of us
who learn by taking things apart and trying to put them back together
again. Having it still actually working afterwards was always a
bonus... :)

Simon.

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

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

On 01/06/10 01:54, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44129
 >
> Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

LOL

Andy
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Blfs X-Window (lfs scratch 6.3)

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page