> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:11:08 -0500 > From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> > To: BLFS Support List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] libdrm-2.4.56 complains about pciaccess > > ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: > > On 08/24/2014 08:38 AM, ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: > > > After reviewing the scripts again and again, it turns out that there are > > two issues over here. > > > > First, libdrm-2.4.56 has to be build after Xorg libs, which are more > > required than recommended. > > We have always assumed that the recommended packages have been installed > for the BLFS instructions. I just made that more explicit in the "Notes > on Building Software" section: > > "Recommended means that BLFS strongly suggests this package is installed > first for a clean and trouble-free build, that won't have issues either > during the build process, or at run-time. The instructions in the book > assume these packages are installed. Some changes or workarounds may be > required if these packages are not installed." > > > I finally build using book's instructions > > > > ./configure --prefix=/usr \ > > --enable-udev && > > make > > > > but still get some tests not passed. Anyway, there is a second issue. > > Tests are not always clean. That may be an upstream issue or a BLFS > issue, however if the vast majority of tests pass, then it's usually OK. > > > Now in Xorg libs, libXfont-1.4.8 fails with this requirement: > > > > Requested 'fontsproto < 2.1.3' but version of FontsProto is 2.1.3 > > > > If you reverse to fonstproto-2.1.2 in Xorg protocols again, everything > > goes fine through Xorg libs, libdrm, Mesa and so on ... until > > xorg-server-1.16.0 that complains: > > > > Requested 'fontsproto >= 2.1.3' but version of FontsProto is 2.1.2 > > > > So, fontsproto must be at 2.1.3 in order to use xorg-server-1.16.0. > > You are using the development version of the book, so you should not be > suprised if there are issues, especially if you are deviating from what > BLFS expects. >
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.6-systemd-rc1/chapter06/inetutils.html "[...] because Util-linux installed a version earlier." http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.6-systemd-rc1/chapter06/e2fsprogs.html "[...] as Util-Linux installed all of them earlier." AIUI, OP is querying the 'earlier', & asking: does the text need to change since util-linux moved to end of ch.6 (or at least to after inetutils/e2fsprogs); or is the 'earlier' still valid text and is now referring to ch.5 util-linux . (Apols for any misattrib/&c.) rgds, akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
