Thank you very much for the post.
On 30-04-2015 13:58, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 07:32:32AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Re: r15900 and r15901.
>> CONFIGURE="./configure --prefix=/usr" &&
>> INSTALLCOMMAND="make install &&
>> chmod -v 755 /usr/lib/lib{hogweed,nettle}.so &&
>> install -v -m755 -d /usr/share/doc/${PACKAGE} &&
>> install -v -m644 nettle.html /usr/share/doc/${PACKAGE}"
> But does that chmod do the same thing ? A
> symlink is normally 777, what we need is to change its target (from
> what I recall, the targets get installed as 644).
Yes. And I think you agre that we should every time check if versions
could be removed from the instructions.
Simple test of concept:
$ touch test.so.123 && ln -sv test.so.123 test.so
“test.so” -> “test.so.123”
$ stat -c '%a %A %n' test.so*
777 lrwxrwxrwx test.so
664 -rw-rw-r-- test.so.123
$ LANG=C chmod -c 0755 test.so
mode of 'test.so' changed from 0664 (rw-rw-r--) to 0755 (rwxr-xr-x)
$ stat -c '%a %A %n' test.so*
777 lrwxrwxrwx test.so
755 -rwxr-xr-x test.so.123
>> $CONFIGURE &&
>>
>> sed -e '/FUNCS=/ s/-d/&|uniq/' \
>> -e '/get_x509_crt/ {n;d}' \
>> -e '/get_x509_key/ {n;d}' \
>> -e '/get_verify_flags/ {n;d}' \
>> -i doc/manpages/Makefile &&
>>
>> time make -j${MKFLGS} &&
>>
>> But when editing, IIRC, noticed that configure and make where in one
>> block, and didn't want to to modify that. So, forgot the missing
>> Makefile and put in the beginning.
> I haven't actually confirmed that applying the sed to configure.in
> does the same thing, but it did let me build it.
OK. I think that I will revert to Makefile and move between config and
make. and move explanation to "Commands explanations. This way, commands
will be in one block, and the form I tested.
>> About the recommended dependency and the grammar, I don't have excuse, I
>> really commit these mistakes, and I will be always much thankful, when
>> fixed.
>
> English grammar changes, and what was there could be understood. If
> I hadn't been adding a paragraph just below it I would not have
> bothered to alter it.
>
> For recommended - when a dependency used to be optional, and we
> already have it installed, it becomes much harder to find out that
> a package now wants it. Because I was building on a new system
> without p11-kit, I found it. At least the error message from
> configure told me how to work around it.
Again, thank you very much for the encouraging words and generosity.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
