[blfs-dev] Little CMS version 2.x
Hi all, Could anyone get me up to speed on what packages have incompatibilities with the Little CMS version 2.x engine? Thanks! -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:43:01 up 22:47, 1 user, load average: 0.39, 0.10, 0.03 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Little CMS version 2.x
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:45:08AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, Could anyone get me up to speed on what packages have incompatibilities with the Little CMS version 2.x engine? Thanks! For things in the book, the last person to look was Andy. Google finds his comments on the gimp and poppler. Then he pointed to a debian patch for poppler. I think we've upgraded both since then, it looks as if poppler can now use lcms2. For the moment, I still have to build lcms1 - it dropped out of my build when firefox (I think) stopped using it, only to get pulled back in for ufraw. Using recent source, apparently the following might still use lcms1: ken@milliways ~/repos/BLFS-full/trunk/BOOK $find -name '*.xml' | grep -v -e '/tmp' -e '/archive' | xargs egrep 'linkend.*lcms./' gives me ./pst/printing/gs.xml: xref linkend=lcms/, ./pst/scanning/xsane.xml: xref linkend=lcms/, and ./xsoft/other/gimp.xml:xref linkend=lcms/, ./xsoft/other/inkscape.xml: xref linkend=lcms/ ./general/graphlib/libmng.xml:xref linkend=lcms//para ./general/graphlib/poppler.xml: xref linkend=lcms/ or xref linkend=lcms2/, ./general/genutils/imagemagick.xml:xref linkend=lcms/ or - obviously poppler is a false positive ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] Favor
The attached file was too large to send via mail, so instead please download it from http://www.mcmurchy.com/ralcgm/ralcgm-3.50.tar.gz Original Message Subject: Favor Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:12:22 -0500 From: Randy McMurchy ra...@linuxfromscratch.org To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Hi all, I do not have access to my x86_64 partition right now, so if anyone could build the attached file, and then install it (to a temp directory using --prefix=whatever if you do not want it on your system) on your x86_64 system I would appreciate it. I just want to see if it builds correctly. There is also a make check if desired (10 seconds to run). TIA. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 14:15:00 up 1 day, 1:19, 1 user, load average: 1.25, 1.27, 0.77 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Little CMS version 2.x
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/21/12 13:09 CST: For things in the book, the last person to look was Andy. Google finds his comments on the gimp and poppler. Then he pointed to a debian patch for poppler. I think we've upgraded both since then, it looks as if poppler can now use lcms2. Thanks, Ken. I will do the legwork to see if the packages in BLFS that show a dependency for lcms1 have been updated to use lcms2. If so, I suppose we can ditch lcms1. I'll keep y'all updated. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 14:44:00 up 1 day, 1:48, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.12, 0.44 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Little CMS version 2.x
On 22/08/12 05:47, Randy McMurchy wrote: Ken Moffat wrote these words on 08/21/12 13:09 CST: For things in the book, the last person to look was Andy. Google finds his comments on the gimp and poppler. Then he pointed to a debian patch for poppler. I think we've upgraded both since then, it looks as if poppler can now use lcms2. Thanks, Ken. I will do the legwork to see if the packages in BLFS that show a dependency for lcms1 have been updated to use lcms2. If so, I suppose we can ditch lcms1. I'll keep y'all updated. Hi Randy, Welcome back. In my personal build list I have two packages that use lcms1. libmng and gimp. I noticed that in the BLFS book, lcms is not mentioned as an optional dependency in gimp. In my last build, gimp was built without lcms. I can see in the log that it did not detect lcms despite lcms2 being installed at the time. Regards, Wayne. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Little CMS version 2.x
Wayne Blaszczyk wrote these words on 08/21/12 16:31 CST: Hi Randy, Welcome back. Thanks, Wayne! In my personal build list I have two packages that use lcms1. libmng and gimp. I noticed that in the BLFS book, lcms is not mentioned as an optional dependency in gimp. In my last build, gimp was built without lcms. I can see in the log that it did not detect lcms despite lcms2 being installed at the time. Thanks for the tips. I just thought earlier today that most package devs would have moved on to lcms2 by now. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 17:29:01 up 1 day, 4:33, 1 user, load average: 0.48, 0.14, 0.09 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] BLFS Trac
Hi all, I would like to complement everyone involved who has been working on the BLFS project for the last couple of years. You all have done an outstanding job. I could not believe how few Trac tickets there were. I saw many of them closed for Overcome by Events. I thought that was really clever. Anyway, I spent a couple hours on and off yesterday and today looking for package updates and boosted the Trac count to 50. It just didn't feel right for BLFS to have less than 50 open tickets! :-) Just kidding, but this gives me a starting point as to where I can help out. Again, thanks to everyone involved for reviving this project and bringing it to such a current state. Great job, guys! -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 18:04:00 up 1 day, 5:08, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.04, 0.01 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] BLFS Trac
Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I would like to complement everyone involved who has been working on the BLFS project for the last couple of years. You all have done an outstanding job. I could not believe how few Trac tickets there were. I saw many of them closed for Overcome by Events. I thought that was really clever. Anyway, I spent a couple hours on and off yesterday and today looking for package updates and boosted the Trac count to 50. It just didn't feel right for BLFS to have less than 50 open tickets! :-) Well somewhere around last October there were about 220 open tickets. I think we got down to about 3, but if every package only updated once a year, that would be almost two upgrades a day. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] BLFS Trac
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/21/12 18:17 CST: Well somewhere around last October there were about 220 open tickets. I think we got down to about 3, but if every package only updated once a year, that would be almost two upgrades a day. Yes, it has grown into more than a beast. But a very, very cool beast it is! Though what you say is very true, many of the packages are now stagnant, but still provide functionality with no maintenance from the devs. Again, I just cannot tell everyone how much I appreciate all the work that has been done. Simply amazing! -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 18:22:00 up 1 day, 5:26, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.08 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] Cut a Release?
Hi all, I realize this topic has been discussed in detail, and I agree that the consensus is to go forward with our rolling updates to SVN. However, for posterity's sake, I could cut a release (7.0?) just to have something in the archives. I will update the BLFS home page to say that SVN is still the resource to use, but it might be nice to have a version in the archives that reflect where we stand right now. I have my notes and it would only take a couple of hours to cut a release, PDF and all. Thoughts? -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 18:40:01 up 1 day, 5:44, 1 user, load average: 0.64, 0.15, 0.08 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Cut a Release?
Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I realize this topic has been discussed in detail, and I agree that the consensus is to go forward with our rolling updates to SVN. However, for posterity's sake, I could cut a release (7.0?) just to have something in the archives. I will update the BLFS home page to say that SVN is still the resource to use, but it might be nice to have a version in the archives that reflect where we stand right now. I have my notes and it would only take a couple of hours to cut a release, PDF and all. I think a tag for August-2012 would be OK, but I wouldn't call it a release. A snapshot seems better. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] XScreenSaver
Among the more serious unwanted occurrences I'm seeing in my current build, one less serious but perhaps worth noting : the tarball for xscreensaver-5.19 has a different md5 now, and tar doesn't think it is a tarball. I think it might be a tarball that has been compressed afterwards. At first I assumed it had got damaged, but the second download had the same md5sum. I've now unzipped it locally, and it seemed to build ok. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] XScreenSaver
Ken Moffat wrote: Among the more serious unwanted occurrences I'm seeing in my current build, one less serious but perhaps worth noting : the tarball for xscreensaver-5.19 has a different md5 now, and tar doesn't think it is a tarball. I think it might be a tarball that has been compressed afterwards. At first I assumed it had got damaged, but the second download had the same md5sum. I've now unzipped it locally, and it seemed to build ok. You can always use http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/BLFS/svn/x/ That one has the right md5sum. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
