> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:21:46 +1300
> From: m...@pc-networking-services.com
> To: "BLFS Support List" <blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
> option to `s'
>
> > m...@pc-networking-services.com wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation
> >> e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was
> >> waiting
> >> the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th.
> >
.
.
> >
> >> I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of
> >> Feb
> >> and no responce there either.
> >>
> >> I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch
> >> following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it
> >> clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the
> >> at
> >> the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error
> >> message.
> >>
> >> I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by
> >> chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown
> >> way
> >> create errors down the track if compilation was successful.
> >
.
.
> >
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you all for your respnses. I neede to clarify a few things:
>
> First off, yes I was compiling this as ROOT and yes I know that many say
> this is a very bad idea blah blah blah. My path when compiling this was
> set as per stock standard blfs/lfs book.
>
> Even though I am a seasoned linux/unix user this is the first time I have
> decided to do things from scratch.
>
> I do know that it was the fifth expression that sed was apparently choking
> on.
>
> Before I posted this message I had gone through the compilation stage at
> least 4 times deleting all working directories before trying again. I
> even rebooted the machine to make sure that no garbage was in the path's
> etc.
>
> I made sure that the path was set correctly.
>
> Now with regards to what Bruce has stated. I WAS able to get it to
> compile by replacing that offending / with a % sign. I still do not know
> if by replacing it with a % sign that the actual java installation is as
> bug free as it could be.
>
> I tried other characters and in my case it did not like them. I can not
> remember exactly which others I tried as it was a number.
>
> I had to edit that offending Make file to do the changes, which if that is
> indeed needed to fix the build on an LFS/BLFS either a patch needs to be
> included or perhaps an entry in the user notes or even on the JAVA
> installation page needs to be made.
>
> My apologies for the confusion as to stating the developers website. I
> always class the developers website for source code as the one that is the
> "official" site, ie in this case iced tea in the url.
>
> I understand that the lfs/blfs community also has developers for the books
> and the patches.
>
> I guess I really do need a little confirmation that by replacing the /
> with the % sign that I have not broken anything that has yet to be
> discovered.
>
> If someone is willing to rebuild as per the blfs book, ie coming from a
> fresh build of lfs to blfs and installing java as per the instructions and
> editing that particular Make file and adding the % sign that it is
> actually installing properly and not giving a false impression I would
> greatly appreciate it.
>
I think it's reasonable to suggest that you edit the makefile and
echo the value of PATH (&/or similar) immediately before and after the
'offending' place(s); include some marker-text that you can grep/locate
readily in the output to logfile/stdout/stderr. (Or, use shell &/or
make's own tracing facilities). Then, you can see if the value of PATH
(&c) is _really_ as you think it is.
rgds,
akhiezer
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
