Linux From ScratchThis Forum is for the discussion of LFS.
LFS is a project that provides you with the steps necessary to build your own custom Linux system.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I emailed the lfs-dev mailing list about the gcc test stuff. Armin Krejzi replied saying that he noticed the same things with gcc and thinks it should be okay to continue with those test results (which I did).
Bruce Dubbs also replied saying that he thought the g++ out-of-memory thing might be stack memory instead of total memory. He's wondering if the ulimit command should be changed to "ulimit -s unlimited". druuna tried some larger settings, but not unlimited. I may try that just to find out. He also commented that the libstd++ thing that I posted above seems to be a new normal for this version of gcc.
I just redid gcc with ulimit -s unlimited and the error still shows up.
I ran free with a 10 second delta in another console and noticed no noticeable dip in available memory (which does happen at an earlier stage, but it "recovers").
BTW: Thanks for the info!
@ Keith Hedger: I did not come across this error during its build/check/installation.
Last edited by druuna; 02-21-2013 at 03:20 PM.
Reason: inlimited -> unlimited
That link in section 6.17 (GCC-4.7.2) of the 7.3-rc1 book to build logs now works and points to some logs for a core2duo system. The GCC tests have the g++ unresolved testcases with "out-of-memory" and the libstdc++ unexpected failure as already described above.
Of course do what you need to do, but it might be worth waiting a few more days for the final version. In spite of the release candidate building well, it is not in a "package freeze" state and significant changes could happen in the final version.
Distribution: Linux From Scratch, Slackware64, Partedmagic
Actually I script any new install so that I can rebuild easily in case something goes wrong or I need to tweak and the Xorg/Xfce instructions on BLFS are pretty stable anyway and I'm just tweaking my previous scripts for them.
The code in your post has a lower-case letter "L" for the -p option in the patch command (as the error message is telling you). It should be a numeral one. In some fonts it is hard to tell the difference.
P.S.: This right here is why I copy and paste nearly every command from the beginning of the LFS book to the end of building a BLFS system. I often type make or make install, but everything else I copy and paste. I don't view that as a sign of weakness or unworthiness. It's just accurate, IMO.
I would say the patch was not applied. The patch command also has a message to tell you that it is applying the patch (patching so-and-so-file...). And another message for when you attempt to run the same patch again. And so on. Patch will tell you what it's doing. But for those times when you weren't watching and aren't sure what happened, you can always exit the build directory back to the source directory (cd ..), delete the build directory, untar the tarball again, and start over. I have often done that when something got botched with patch commands or configure options.
To me, what you posted of yours doesn't compare well. I don't usually test vim (or very many others not specified as critical). But if I did see a test like that one, I think I would not proceed until I found out more about it. You can go directly to the developers with that one by posting it on the lfs-support mailing list. Find out more about subscribing and submitting to it here...