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.
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Currently building LFS on an old machine, using the LFS live CD. However, I've run into what may turn out to be a major-ish hitch. After many hours of compiling gcc, it appears to have crashed out with:
This seems to be an inherent problem when making heavy use of live distros - see Red Hat bug report. So:
I could just try again (and keep my fingers crossed), or
Install a very lightweight distro into the spare space on the disk (I have approx 6 gigs free, but only 48MB RAM on this PC), or
Do the initial build to first boot, with the drive hooked up to another PC (means that the initial tool-chain won't be built on the target processor, though)
Which would be best? For option 2, I could install DSL, but it doesn't come with any development tools and I couldn't tell the Kernel version from a quick glance. Puppy looks to be definitely out of my league. Has anyone any other suggestions?
Edited to add: Another idea occurred - how about if I copied the contents of the CD's /bin, /usr/bin (etc) to a directory on the hard drive, and then either modified $PATH or created links to those directories in /? A bit late to try it now, but has anyone any idea whether that would work?
Trying the last approach. I've copied the contents of /bin and /usr/bin to $LFS/bin_tmp and $LFS/usr/bin_tmp. Had to use -P flag on cp, as so many of the files were actually soft links, and there were a couple that were relative links outside these directories (rcs2log and killall5) - I created similar _tmp directories, and copied across the targets.
I then modified $PATH (the unionfs wouldn't let me replace /bin and /usr/bin with soft links):
I've started the compilation of gcc again, while reciting the prayer of the sys-admin:
Quote:
Oh, pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease...
The CD-ROM drive is still working, of course, as I haven't tried to copy across all the dependencies of the various utilities, but if I open another virtual terminal, the system is a lot more responsive than it was last night.
No joy, I'm afraid. After 11h29mins, the process exited reporting errors. According to the Debian web-site, it is possible to install in only* 44MB, so I'm going to try a minimal install in the spare space on the disk, and do the build with that.
* Eee... when I were a lad, if something had 8MB of RAM and an 80MHz processor, we thought it were a supercomputer!
Tch! Couldn't get Debian 5 to install at all! Have gone for the final option. Connected the HD up to another machine (Athlon XP, ¾GB RAM running CentOS). So far, so good. Have built gcc and glibc, and they passed the sanity check! What's more, the compile of gcc took less than 20 minutes .
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.