Randy McMurchy wrote:
> To summarize a thread (some of which is contained here) from LFS-Dev,
> Bruce ran into a situation where the JAI tarball, referenced and
> installed in the BLFS FOP instructions, contains an obsolete usage
> of the coreutils 'tail' command.
>
> So, to fix this, I'll add the following 'sed' command to the FOP
> instructions right before the 'chmod' command that sets the executable
> bit on the file.
>
> sed -i 's/tail +122/tail -n +122/' ../jai-1_1_2_01-lib-linux-i586-jdk.bin &&
>
> I've tested this command to work and it doesn't affect the file
> if the sed command is run more than once against the file. Anyone
> see any issues with using this sed in the FOP instructions?
I think a bit more tweaking is necessary. The .bin file also does
if [ -x /usr/bin/sum ] ; then
echo "Checksumming..."
sum=`/usr/bin/sum $outname`
index=1
for s in $sum
do
case $index in
1) sum1=$s;
index=2;
;;
2) sum2=$s;
index=3;
;;
esac
done
if expr $sum1 != 17963 || expr $sum2 != 2592 ; then
echo "The download file appears to be corrupted. Please refer"
echo "to the Troubleshooting section of the Installation"
echo "Instructions on the download page for more information."
echo "Please do not attempt to install this archive file."
rm -f $outname
exit 1
fi
else
echo "Can't find /usr/bin/sum to do checksum. Continuing anyway."
fi
----------------
Upon testing, I get:
sum=07893 2592 sum1=07893 sum2=2592
Perhaps we also need to add to the sed:
-e "s/17963/07893/"
I don't know why the sum is different, but fop works for me with the
different checksum.
Can you verify?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
