[lfs-dev] binutils, elfutils-0.175, objdump, linux kernel-4.19.12 (SVN-20190101) Follow-up

Jean-Marc Pigeon jmp at safe.ca
Tue Jan 8 19:36:22 PST 2019


On 01/08/2019 09:52 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:18:36PM -0500, Jean-Marc Pigeon via lfs-dev wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Redone all chapter 6 with elfutils-0.173
>> (all things equal otherwise)
>> Kernel compilation is now OK.
>> According:
>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/61151
>> Bug is in binutils, patch have been applied on git
>> but there is no binutils-2.31.2 (as fare I can see).
>> My proposal is to have SVN to back track to elfutils-0.173
>> waiting for binutils next official release.
>> comments?
> On the system where I most recently built LFS (but back in late
> November) I have elfutils-0.175 and binutils-2.31.1
> I successfully built, and booted, both the 4.19.3 amd 4.20.0 kernels
> on that machine (as well as a 4.20-rc), using - as normal - the
> original kernel headers which were 4.19.3.  Too busy to try 5.0-rc1.
> Looking at my scripts, for elfutils I currently ensure that my
> CFLAGS include '-g' (yeughh - my main purpose with CFLAGS is to
> strip debug info to save space since I'm rubbish as using gdb ;)
> and I assume that the book builds without specifying CFLAGS.  Maybe
> that is related, maybe it is a lingering result of some previous
> problem.
> On all my previous systems, including 8.3, I have not seen any
> reason to update elfutils or binutils, so only that one system uses
> 0.175.
> I don't have any objection to reverting to an older version of a
> package (currently using an older psutils), but at the moment I
> don't think one "doesn't build for me" (when it presumably did build
> for whoever updated those packages) is a persuasive reason.
> ĸen
I agree, if I am the only one no need to do reverting.
I may be overlooking something.

Please could you confirm you were successful to compile
the Kernel because
within .config file.

Such case, you are successful, because objdump is not
used within Kernel compilation (I was successful too
with 0.175).

But, then, the objdump trouble/question could fire back
with in another application/packages...


A bientôt
Jean-Marc Pigeon                        E-Mail: jmp at safe.ca
SAFE Inc.                             Phone: (514) 493-4280
   Clement, 'a kiss solution' to get rid of SPAM (at last)
      Clement' Home base <"http://www.clement.safe.ca">

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5158 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20190108/4b308b5e/attachment.bin>

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list