LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2007, 04:03 PM   #31
GrapefruiTgirl
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550

Quote:
O.k... DIY revolves around making binary packages whereas LFS does not. The $PM_DEST variable is the same as $PKG in a slackbuild script. So....

make install $PM_DEST=/tmp/package-man-pages
cd /tmp/package-man-pages
makepkg -l y -c n /tmp/man-pages-2.50-noarch-1.tgz
installpkg /tmp/man-pages-2.50-noarch-1.tgz

Then move on to the headers.
OK, thank you, that little part was most helpful!
Quote:
Once you start the chroot phase, you are building for your new system.
Yep, I realize this.
Quote:
So use the $PM_DEST variable, otherwise what are you going to upgrade your system with?
Good point! Though all things considered, I don't depend 100% on the Slackware package manager as it is now. Still, good point.
Quote:
As for the glibc make check errors. I can't give any advice unless I know what they are. Don't take them so lightly like you seem to be doing. glibc is THE MOST important piece of software on any system. Get a bad build and your system is worthless.
Please do not think I am taking the errors lightly. I am not. If I were, I wouldn't be on my fourth complete cleanout/unpack/make/make-check of glibc. I may not have absorbed every drop of info I have perused the last few days, but one would be hard pressed to miss the large WARNINGS and pointers to Ulrich Dreppers rant about installing glibc. Incidentally, I now know the [Error] *** make was apparently caused by a missing ':' in my /etc/passwd file, thanks to the GNU-glibc mailing list. I'll have verified or disproven this shortly..
Quote:
It's told where to put your source tarballs and extracted source tarballs.
If you followed those directions, you should have a /mount/storage/temptools/src/tarballs directory. You put the source in there. You also extract in that same directory, build in that same directory and then remove the extracted source code after your done with it.
Any patches used in DIY are meant to be stored here: /mount/storage/temptools/src/patches.
Go back and slowly read thru everything. Seems like your jumping right in with out a clear sense of the setup proceedure and goals of DIY... Look at your ~/.bashrc for the new build user. The SYSROOT variable should be set to /mnt/storage, the time zone variable should NOT be Australia/Sydney unless you happen to live near Sydney... I have a feeling you might have not personalized that stuff...
I DID infact create the temptools, tarballs and patches directories, as well as following EVERY line of the .bashrc/config.site/bash_profile section, and all that stuff is just fine. My time zone is set correctly as America/Halifax. SYSROOT is perfectly correct.
I really appreciate your help here, and that of others, but despite having read all the docs (and I'm still reading while I am compiling) there are subtleties missing from DIY AND LFS documentation, which you are being very helpful in making me catch onto. I wish though you would leave it to me to trash my system if that's what happens, and meanwhile, please don't assume I am blindly plowing ahead with no clue. There would be no point going to all this trouble, if I were carelessly leaving half-concocted compilations in my wake which would forever be unfixable. The point I admittedly DID miss here, was that I am still supposed to be using that 'tarballs & patches' arrangement DURING the chroot phase. Thank you once again for clarifying that for me .
Quote:
I guess I'm also unsure of what your really trying to accomplish. Are you just building a new system from scratch (LFS/DIY) and going to use that instead of Slackware (or dual boot), or are you trying to make binary packages with your new toolchain so you can 'upgradepkg' on your actuall Slackware system.
I thought I was relatively clear when I started this thread but the purpose of this whole experiment, besides teaching myself something about the guts of Linux, is to wind up upgrading my running Slackware to a Slackware that's more current (GCC 4/glibc 2.4), that's optimized for my machine (i686), so runs a bit faster, and which was compiled by me
Quote:
Either way, you need to install pkgtools on /mnt/storage BEFORE the first man-pages package. And, you need to be using your new pkgtools to make packages...

Here are my notes for accomplishing that:
http://jaguarlinux.com/pub/DIY/source/base-order.txt
Those note are 'jaguar' specific but you should be able to tell what's relevant. Starting at the "Toolchain:" part, you should read. You'll need to install SLACKWARES pkgtools along with tar-1.13. When your in the chroot stage, you should really be running the .SlackBuild scripts and not doing it by hand. Otherwise, again, your building DIY and not Slackware... If you use my scripts from my pub/ directory, then you'll be running 'jaguar' and not Slackware...
Another thing to consider is, The next Slackware will be running glibc-2.5 and gcc-4.2.0... Again, I'm not sure what your end goal is. I happen to prefer a 2.4/4.1.2 combo because it's really stable but if your going to be using these packages to upgrade Slackware, then you'll actually be downgrading slackware.
I'd stop where you are and look ahead and determine a game plan instead of blindly pushing thru with the refrence build at DIY.
As mentioned, I'm not "blindly" doing anything..
I have the Jaguar site open, have had since yesterday, but again, going back to the build-order, that makes THREE different build orders, so yes, I guess I am leaning towards the DIY method.
Again, thanks for reminding me/telling me to start up pkgtools at the chroot stage. You got me just in time for that -- kindly remember, there's no mention of pkgtools, or when to install them, in the DIY, as it IS DYI after all, so I definitely would have missed that opportuinty. I had planned on finishing the toolchain and base build, and THEN when the actual 'real' system was up and running, to start re-packaging the rest of the Slackware packages.. Your advice on that is welcome.
As for what versions of this and that are in the next Slackware release, and not knowing personally when it might come out, I will just have to apply what I learn during this process, to my next rebuild, at which point I may go to glibc 2.5 if it has proven stable and compatible enough, or who knows maybe by that time I'll be way off on a tangent from "Slackware" as we know it!
 
Old 06-04-2007, 10:32 PM   #32
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
Well, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to come off condecending or anything. I just hate to see you spend so much time on it and then realize you should have done this or that in the beginning. Greg (of DIY) isn't big on spelling things out all that much so, yea, the docs don't go into great detail about certain things. He uses pacman from Arch Linux, so that's why pacman is listed in the temptools section. You are meant to install your package manager of choice before you start the chroot stage...

As for where to keep your tarballs you can put them anywhere really. I allways keep them in /mnt/storage/source. If you come across something that needs to be patched then adjust the DIY patch command so it's right...

My build order should match DIY's precisely except for the addition of file, mktemp and berkley-database... Haven't double checked in a few months tho... Oh.. I also added xfsprogs and udev at the end... Maybe one or two others because I consider them to be a "base" package...

Well, again... Sorry if I sounded snippy. It's just really frustrating getting towards the end of a couple day project, only to realize you forgot to do some key things... You can still make packages of everything in the chroot stage that you didn't originally (if you've gotten far). As long as you haven't done the 're-adjusting the toolchain' section doing an 'installpkg' overtop of an existing glibc shouldn't hurt anything. It's once you re-adjust the toolchain and actually start using your final glibc is when your bound to it.... Then, you would have to make a package like Slackware does, that's able to 'upgrade' overtop. I don't do this for my glibc package, so what I do is boot into my live CD, mount my partition (but don't chroot) and use "upgradepkg ROOT=/mnt/jaguar glibc.tgz" (I keep pkgtools on my live CD). Otherwise, running my 'standard' doinst.sh for glibc will really break a running system....

Anywho.... Keep us informed...

Last edited by jong357; 06-04-2007 at 10:34 PM.
 
Old 06-04-2007, 11:03 PM   #33
GrapefruiTgirl
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550
No worries, I appreciate the reply and your continued input.
Now that I have gotten this far, and have enjoyed what I have done so far, I fear I may have to start again anyways: Something just simply is not working with the second compile & make check of glibc.
I can't track it down to one single thing. I've re-done it from scratch about 5 times, at about an hour in total each time to config/make/make-check, and still it ends the same way. The LFS tutorial explains the (ignored) message as being caused by the host system, and is not important. The second error, I can't figure out.
The 2 repeated errors every time at the end of the check run is "posix/<something> (ignored)" and "tests/grp<something.out>" -- apology for not having the exact errors handy, I have long scrolled them off the screen.

There are mixed messages in the mailing lists and on GNU/glibc.org about whether the 2.6.21 headers, will work a) with glibc 2.4 b) gcc 4.1.2 c) on my machine, and d) with my running 2.6.21 kernel, due to as-yet unknown bug(s) so even though I don't want to, I might try the 2.6.12 libc headers as a test. If the problem goes away, then it will be safe to figure it's the headers causing the problem, at which point I will again try the 2.6.21 headers (lol <-- sucker for punishment).

I don't look at this as a setback because I have learned a whack of stuff, and when I start tomorrow it will get back to this point quicker than it took to get here now, thanks in part to your input and other users filling in some of the grey areas in the DIY tutorial.

Thanks again jong357 for the help -- I'm not going to give up But I hafta go to bed now
Update tomorrow when I get to the chroot again!
 
Old 06-05-2007, 01:29 AM   #34
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
Your RUNNING kernel plays a HUGE part in the success or failure of building glibc... Headers built against shouldn't be too big of an issue. As long as they are 'recent' 2.6 headers... I think I used a 2.6.18 kernel and headers (unidef patched) when I built glibc-2.4 using gcc-4.1.1 (slack-11 host) and I had no errors what-so-ever. I did get an error that was due to an option compiled into my running kernel. I removed that option, rebuilt the kernel, rebooted and then re-chrooted and the make check passed everything.

While the make check is important, don't get TOO hung up on it. I don't wan't to contradict my earlier statement, but.... I've used glibc-2.5 that had about 20 locale failures, 4 math test failures and numerous other make check failures.... I didn't feel too good about using it, but it seemed to be working as it should with no visible problems...

Try opening up the file in question that failes.. If you don't get a clue to what is happening, try googling for the contents of said file. You might get lucky and find a solution to ditch that error... If all else fails, you can't seem to ditch the error, and it's only a couple errors, then just keep going and use the resulting glibc package... 10:1, you'll probably be allright.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 02:56 AM   #35
piete
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Havant, Hampshire, UK
Distribution: Slamd64, Slackware, PS2Linux
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 44
Interesting stuff regarding the running kernel and glibc - I've never given that much thought since mostly I deal with cross-compilation where clearly my running kernel isn't even the same architecture =) I do not want to confuse the issue by sticking my oar in, so I shall try and keep this short!

Anyway, I was just about to say "Whoah, wait, surely that's not true?" (RE: running kernel being important) when I found some interesting posts from the DIY mailing list. Maybe you've seen them, maybe you haven't, but here they are for the newcomers to this thread:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/glibc-b.../msg00029.html
http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/d...st/000847.html

And fwiw, you only need a very bare compiler to build a kernel (the kernel runs at system level, which means no C library functions to call on, thus no glibc required!), so I would concur - GCC-Pass1 is kernel build time if needs be. And at the risk of looking like my oar is being stuck in, worth reading up about the whole "kernel" vs "kernel headers" and even "sanitized kernel headers", hopefully you'll be able to spot the running themes with building the toolchain across the different build methods (DIY, Jaguar, LFS, etc) and understand the difference between "kernel source" and "kernel headers":

http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/libc-a.../msg00162.html

I shall be watching with continued interest =)

Best regards,
- Piete.

Edit: the answer to "Whoah, surely that's not true?" is "sometimes", or more accurately "depends how you build the system" *sigh*

Last edited by piete; 06-05-2007 at 02:58 AM.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 04:20 AM   #36
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,032
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
If there was a poll for the "Most Interesting Thread On LQ", this would surely deserve to win.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 04:25 AM   #37
Crooksey
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
I may actually do something like this myself.

I love slackware, but i386? Reason why i went to arch linux really.

If this does work, please post up

Do you reckon I could arch optimise for x86_64 from the i386 installation?

Last edited by Crooksey; 06-05-2007 at 04:31 AM.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 05:41 AM   #38
piete
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Havant, Hampshire, UK
Distribution: Slamd64, Slackware, PS2Linux
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 44
I make the assumption you want an x86_64 system, not a well informed x86 system. x86_64's native 32-bit instruction set should be i686, but I cannot find any links on the AMD site that state this explicitly to back up this claim. I don't know what AMD specific extensions (SSE, SSE2, MMX, etc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 has some info on this) the chips have or how important they are, on balance, to an average (a real abitrary notion!) running system.

Regardless, "x86_64 optimisation" would be best done by recompilation of the whole system using a cross-toolchain, which I think is out of the scope of this particular thread (because cross-compilation is very different to arch optimisation at the build level in technique) ...

Anyway, some threads that have looked at this in the past:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=433767
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=339819

Some of the information I put up is a bit out of date and could be misleading - messageboard posts are worth exactly what you pay for them - so always do some reading around the topic!

Good luck,
- Piete.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 06:23 AM   #39
Crooksey
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Would you just suggest using slamd64?

But I thought this want that supported...
 
Old 06-05-2007, 06:27 AM   #40
piete
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Havant, Hampshire, UK
Distribution: Slamd64, Slackware, PS2Linux
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 44
Personally, I like slamd64 and think it's brilliant. Some people have problems with it (geniune bugs or seat-to-keyboard errors).

In the end, try it and see it. Like i keep saying, most of the time the problems will be slackware related more than slamd64 related, but there are a bunch of gotchas in compiling that are worth knowing about (./configure --libdir=/usr/lib64 --prefix=/usr being the most common, imo).
 
Old 06-05-2007, 06:40 AM   #41
Crooksey
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Would that give better performance then turning i386 into x86_64 ?

Last edited by Crooksey; 06-05-2007 at 06:41 AM.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 07:38 AM   #42
piete
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Havant, Hampshire, UK
Distribution: Slamd64, Slackware, PS2Linux
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 44
I'm sorry, could you restate your question? i386 --> x86_64 is the same as slackware --> slamd64 .

./configure --libdir=/usr/lib64 --prefix=/usr in i386 will not optimise anything, it was an example line for compiling into a bi-arch system.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 08:28 AM   #43
Crooksey
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Ok, I understand, I think im just going to run Slamd64.

(Sorry for breif hi-jack)
 
Old 06-05-2007, 09:13 AM   #44
GrapefruiTgirl
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by jong357

Try opening up the file in question that failes.. If you don't get a clue to what is happening, try googling for the contents of said file. You might get lucky and find a solution to ditch that error... If all else fails, you can't seem to ditch the error, and it's only a couple errors, then just keep going and use the resulting glibc package... 10:1, you'll probably be allright.
Quick update while I make breakfast here:

I did the above, and the first time, there was something apparently amiss with the /etc/group file, and the second time it told me that it couldn't find a user with UID=0 which both to me are pretty insignificant, however, this being a situation where I want to eliminate ANY chance of self-induced correctible errors, I'd really like to see ZERO errors on make check.

I think I AM using 'fairly recent' 2.6 headers, ie: the same ones I am running on the host -- 2.6.21. I have 2.6.20 here too, so maybe I'll try that first rather than downgrading to .18 or .12.

Also, I think I'll script the initial package builds so when I need to do this again from the VERY start, the first half will 'do itself' and also, I'm gonna set up the unpriveleged user account FIRST, from my desktop, rather than from the console during the environment setup, so I can hopefully get him allowed to use X and thus MC and Konqueror. Not sure how that will work, but gonna try.

OK, looking forward to getting started, but dishes and breakfast are first on the list.
Have a great morning everyone; see you soon.
SV
 
Old 06-05-2007, 10:52 AM   #45
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by piete
Maybe you've seen them, maybe you haven't, but here they are for the newcomers to this thread:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/glibc-b.../msg00029.html
http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/d...st/000847.html
Yea... I've seen them.. I'm "Jon"...
 
  


Reply

Tags
slackware from scratch


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When does the next Slackware developement cycle begin? Old_Fogie Slackware 3 11-05-2006 04:58 AM
How to Optimize Slackware 10.2? zeroz52 Slackware 23 10-04-2005 06:42 PM
which SRPMs to recompile to optimize? Tomasfuego Fedora 2 12-28-2004 10:14 PM
optimize for size -- disk io & mem Ikebo Linux - General 2 12-11-2004 04:37 PM
How to fully optimize Slackware? Introx Slackware 4 05-30-2004 04:23 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration