Ken, thank you very much for the replies. Em 12-02-2012 19:16, Ken Moffat escreveu: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 01:41:09PM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> grep. That error message is from pcre-8.30 build log. It is called from the >> build script, after installation and ldconfig: >> >> BUILD_DIR_SIZE=`du -sck \ >> $TMPDIR/$BUILDDIR | grep total | cut -d"t" -f1` >> >> I believe you recognize. It is from your suggestion to me, some months ago. >> And it is good, not only for the intended purpose, but it warned me, with >> that complaint. I should not have tried to reboot without fixing pcre before. >> >> Also it is a shame that I should have also paid more attention to the >> remarks on BLFS pcre-8.30 page *Command Explanations* >> >> "--libdir=/lib: This option makes it install its libraries into /lib. If you >> reinstall Grep after installing PCRE, Grep will get linked against PCRE and >> this may cause problems during the boot process if /usr is a separate mount >> point. If you have /usr/lib on the same partition as /lib you can omit this >> option" >> >> as one further warning to solve the issue before rebooting. > Thinking about this a bit more, why was the old rebuilt grep not > using libpcre.so, rather than libpcre.so.0 ? I've never rebuilt > grep after pcre is installed, so I don't know.
Sorry. I do not understand this question. That is why I kept thinking and did not reply yesterday. But reading Andy's post I received today, perhaps the answer is that paco removed the library. And replying to your post also received today, I agree in part that: > ... yet another example of why package managers are *evil* In part, because paco really facilitates my view of installed packages. However, I will modify the scrips to not uninstall previous versions of packages. In this respect, I many times used *make uninstall*, before using paco, what is really evil is uninstall, not paco. Perhaps, somewhere in the book, there could be a recommendation of not uninstall, in the lines of Markku Pesonen: > When upgrading a working system, you should always > keep the old version of a library installed, until all programs that > depend on it are recompiled against the new one. It may be I am wrong, but differently from you (citation following), I think there is a problem. > I don't think there is a problem with the book. >>> I always recommend booting to level 3 and using startx and not ?dm for >>> exactly this type of problem. >> I used to do that for months (or even years?) until one day I read about >> security issues if not using a dm, and installed slim. I have spent about an >> hour now, trying to find it if it was on Arch or Gentoo, without success. As >> I do not have much security knowledge, I believed it. >> >> Also, I notice that most linux distros use one. >> >> Please, I would like advice on that, as life would be much easier without >> dm's. >> > My memory of slim is that I eventually hated it :) Perhaps because > the text was too small, but I forget. It would be interesting to see > that 'security' report. I used to use gdm for convenience (before it > changed and stopped me seeing the results of the shutdown scripts - > unpleasant when my development created an error in them), but the > reason distros use dm's is that "users expect to boot to a graphical > desktop". AFAIK, there are no security reasons to prefer a > graphical login - although, arguably, in an office with multiple > users a tty login where xorg is not running will not load a > screensaver when a machine is unattended. What I disliked more about slim was the lack of poweroff/reboot (if I recall correctly). Thus, I replaced it by lxdm, which is ok, but had to do some gymnastics to get it working (PAM, Xsession, to name two). Now I am in the route to removing lxdm, as I will discuss in the reply to Bruce. Thanks very much for the attention, again. Much appreciated. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
