Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] Em 17-02-2014 07:53, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: Em 17-02-2014 03:47, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu: Thanks for all the effort. As requested the output is: lsb_release -ds 7.4 (the are displayed in the output) lsb_release -is n/a Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if it was a successful build or not. Regards, Christopher. I think I know what happened. You forgot or did not properly http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.4/chapter09/theend.html (before doing the following as root, backup, if you have them, the two files, just for later comparison, so you will see the problem): echo 7.4 /etc/lfs-release In the following, replace your name here by what you want the codename to be. In may case, it is set by jhalfs to lfs-jhalfs. In your case, you can use christopher, lfs-christopher, anything you want. cat /etc/lsb-release EOF DISTRIB_ID=Linux From Scratch DISTRIB_RELEASE=7.4 DISTRIB_CODENAME=your name here DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION=Linux From Scratch EOF This should solve your problems. You must do this, other software needs the lsb_release output. Thus, lsb_release -ds output comes from DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION lsb_release -is output comes from DISTRIB_ID Notice, in the referred page: Linux Standards Base (LSB) This problem appeared in the support page. Second time that lsb_release gives problem, if not installed or correctly configured. So, it seems that it is becoming increasingly more important. I am thinking of changing the page in BLFS to include the configuration file, duplicating, somehow, what is in LFS. - usually a bad idea; maintenance headache, quickly gets out-of-sync ( then just plain wrong wrt relevance), thus causng new problems, etc. The core of the problem is, I'd suggest, that: openjdk/icedtea code does have a bug in that it uses lsb output, and lsb uses the string 'n/a' as a default value, and openjdk/icedtea doesn't sanitise for that in at least the problematic sed. (IIRC that problematic sed appeared a few years back). Whereas, openjdk/icedtea should be able to compile/work ok whether without the lsb stuff present or with lsb present and returning 'n/a' for values. Thus, further, the lsb stuff should not be a assumed to be(come) a prerequisite, unless the openjdk/icedtea upstream says explicitly that it is. Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. Perhaps/probably also send same or similar patch to upstream. * on openjdk/icedtea page, a link/ref to that lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' material on lsb. Maybe even somehow formally include it in recommended/required/optional deps: but - ref notes above - I'd say at the present stage it'd be at most under 'optional', in the absence of any stronger statement from upstream. Again: that problematic sed doesn't necessarily mean that lsb is any sort of pre-requisite for openjdk/icedtea; the latter should be able to at least compile OK without lsb present or lsb present and returning 'n/a' defvals. * on lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' page, perhaps strengthen the wordings It may be a good idea It is also a good idea, and give an example of some software that uses lsb (albeit perhaps slightly only-cosmetically for at least openjdk/icedtea). Perhaps collect the lsb stuff together in its own page in lfs or early blfs, if it's deemed 'important' enough now. rgds, akh I will include a test, to see how things are working, then, if not proper result, use the configure instructions (reproduced above). Any objections, here in dev? I will wait feedback from Christopher. -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
On 17/02/2014 16:21, akhiezer wrote: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] Em 17-02-2014 07:53, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: Em 17-02-2014 03:47, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu: Thanks for all the effort. As requested the output is: lsb_release -ds 7.4 (the are displayed in the output) lsb_release -is n/a Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if it was a successful build or not. Regards, Christopher. I think I know what happened. You forgot or did not properly http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.4/chapter09/theend.html (before doing the following as root, backup, if you have them, the two files, just for later comparison, so you will see the problem): echo 7.4 /etc/lfs-release In the following, replace your name here by what you want the codename to be. In may case, it is set by jhalfs to lfs-jhalfs. In your case, you can use christopher, lfs-christopher, anything you want. cat /etc/lsb-release EOF DISTRIB_ID=Linux From Scratch DISTRIB_RELEASE=7.4 DISTRIB_CODENAME=your name here DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION=Linux From Scratch EOF This should solve your problems. You must do this, other software needs the lsb_release output. Thus, lsb_release -ds output comes from DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION lsb_release -is output comes from DISTRIB_ID Notice, in the referred page: Linux Standards Base (LSB) This problem appeared in the support page. Second time that lsb_release gives problem, if not installed or correctly configured. So, it seems that it is becoming increasingly more important. I am thinking of changing the page in BLFS to include the configuration file, duplicating, somehow, what is in LFS. - usually a bad idea; maintenance headache, quickly gets out-of-sync ( then just plain wrong wrt relevance), thus causng new problems, etc. The core of the problem is, I'd suggest, that: openjdk/icedtea code does have a bug in that it uses lsb output, and lsb uses the string 'n/a' as a default value, and openjdk/icedtea doesn't sanitise for that in at least the problematic sed. (IIRC that problematic sed appeared a few years back). Whereas, openjdk/icedtea should be able to compile/work ok whether without the lsb stuff present or with lsb present and returning 'n/a' for values. Thus, further, the lsb stuff should not be a assumed to be(come) a prerequisite, unless the openjdk/icedtea upstream says explicitly that it is. Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. Perhaps/probably also send same or similar patch to upstream. * on openjdk/icedtea page, a link/ref to that lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' material on lsb. Maybe even somehow formally include it in recommended/required/optional deps: but - ref notes above - I'd say at the present stage it'd be at most under 'optional', in the absence of any stronger statement from upstream. Again: that problematic sed doesn't necessarily mean that lsb is any sort of pre-requisite for openjdk/icedtea; the latter should be able to at least compile OK without lsb present or lsb present and returning 'n/a' defvals. * on lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' page, perhaps strengthen the wordings It may be a good idea It is also a good idea, and give an example of some software that uses lsb (albeit perhaps slightly only-cosmetically for at least openjdk/icedtea). Perhaps collect the lsb stuff together in its own page in lfs or early blfs, if it's deemed 'important' enough now. -- my 2c with a 5c discount the lsb_release package is not supplied by linux foundation any longer its been removed and not maintained. in a email from them every vendor needs to supply a script that provides this function however this is too declare LSB compliance. sure icedtea should handle any output likewise having sane results will be a better option as there may be problems else where. a proposal will be to return NA as opposed n/a or any other value one can assume this output will be used in sed/awk/other scripts so a friendly result is sane. thus my argument is if you have such a script you declaring compliance and will be returning valid results that are vendor not user supplied. for LSB you MUST have RPM and a installed package lsb(-VER) this needs to install the linux foundation special ld script that LSB programs call alongside std ld.so the test
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Em 17-02-2014 11:21, akhiezer escreveu: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] Em 17-02-2014 07:53, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: Em 17-02-2014 03:47, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu: Thanks for all the effort. As requested the output is: lsb_release -ds 7.4 (the are displayed in the output) lsb_release -is n/a Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if it was a successful build or not. Regards, Christopher. I think I know what happened. You forgot or did not properly http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.4/chapter09/theend.html (before doing the following as root, backup, if you have them, the two files, just for later comparison, so you will see the problem): echo 7.4 /etc/lfs-release In the following, replace your name here by what you want the codename to be. In may case, it is set by jhalfs to lfs-jhalfs. In your case, you can use christopher, lfs-christopher, anything you want. cat /etc/lsb-release EOF DISTRIB_ID=Linux From Scratch DISTRIB_RELEASE=7.4 DISTRIB_CODENAME=your name here DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION=Linux From Scratch EOF This should solve your problems. You must do this, other software needs the lsb_release output. Thus, lsb_release -ds output comes from DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION lsb_release -is output comes from DISTRIB_ID Notice, in the referred page: Linux Standards Base (LSB) This problem appeared in the support page. Second time that lsb_release gives problem, if not installed or correctly configured. So, it seems that it is becoming increasingly more important. I am thinking of changing the page in BLFS to include the configuration file, duplicating, somehow, what is in LFS. - usually a bad idea; maintenance headache, quickly gets out-of-sync ( then just plain wrong wrt relevance), thus causng new problems, etc. Sorry, akh, I do not agree with this. After reading below, I believe you are thinking that lsb_release is on LFS, but no, installation as a package is in BLFS. But the configuration is in LFS. This is the problem. Took a while this morning for me to get the two parts together, expected the configuration in BLFS (as it was originally), and recalled finally that it was in LFS. That was the reason I told him to install lsb_release. The core of the problem is, I'd suggest, that: openjdk/icedtea code does have a bug in that it uses lsb output, and lsb uses the string 'n/a' as a default value, and openjdk/icedtea doesn't sanitise for that in at least the problematic sed. (IIRC that problematic sed appeared a few years back). Whereas, openjdk/icedtea should be able to compile/work ok whether without the lsb stuff present or with lsb present and returning 'n/a' for values. Thus, further, the lsb stuff should not be a assumed to be(come) a prerequisite, unless the openjdk/icedtea upstream says explicitly that it is. It was a user mistake, unfortunately, due to the two parts being in different books: LFS not properly configured. Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. If I agree with this, other package in BLFS should have a patch, too. And the new programs that would be discovered to fail. Perhaps/probably also send same or similar patch to upstream. * on openjdk/icedtea page, a link/ref to that lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' material on lsb. That was my first thought. Problem is that the link in svn should be to LFS-svn, in rc1 to LFS-rc1, in 7.5, to LFS-7.5. Too complicated, more than the maintainance you were thinking about, when you seemed to think it was in LFS. That made me think of bringing back configuration to BLFS, too. IIRC, first time lsb_release appeared, the configuration was in BLFS, not LFS. Maybe even somehow formally include it in recommended/required/optional deps: but - ref notes above - I'd say at the present stage it'd be at most under 'optional', in the absence of any stronger statement from upstream. Again: that problematic sed doesn't necessarily mean that lsb is any sort of pre-requisite for openjdk/icedtea; the latter should be able to at least compile OK without lsb present or lsb present and returning 'n/a' defvals. It is already in optional. I am intending to promote to recommended. * on lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' page, perhaps strengthen the wordings It may be a good idea It is also a good idea, and give an example of
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Em 17-02-2014 12:25, Gregory H. Nietsky escreveu: On 17/02/2014 16:21, akhiezer wrote: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] Em 17-02-2014 07:53, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: Em 17-02-2014 03:47, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu: Thanks for all the effort. As requested the output is: lsb_release -ds 7.4 (the are displayed in the output) lsb_release -is n/a Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if it was a successful build or not. Regards, Christopher. I think I know what happened. You forgot or did not properly http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.4/chapter09/theend.html (before doing the following as root, backup, if you have them, the two files, just for later comparison, so you will see the problem): echo 7.4 /etc/lfs-release In the following, replace your name here by what you want the codename to be. In may case, it is set by jhalfs to lfs-jhalfs. In your case, you can use christopher, lfs-christopher, anything you want. cat /etc/lsb-release EOF DISTRIB_ID=Linux From Scratch DISTRIB_RELEASE=7.4 DISTRIB_CODENAME=your name here DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION=Linux From Scratch EOF This should solve your problems. You must do this, other software needs the lsb_release output. Thus, lsb_release -ds output comes from DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION lsb_release -is output comes from DISTRIB_ID Notice, in the referred page: Linux Standards Base (LSB) This problem appeared in the support page. Second time that lsb_release gives problem, if not installed or correctly configured. So, it seems that it is becoming increasingly more important. I am thinking of changing the page in BLFS to include the configuration file, duplicating, somehow, what is in LFS. - usually a bad idea; maintenance headache, quickly gets out-of-sync ( then just plain wrong wrt relevance), thus causng new problems, etc. The core of the problem is, I'd suggest, that: openjdk/icedtea code does have a bug in that it uses lsb output, and lsb uses the string 'n/a' as a default value, and openjdk/icedtea doesn't sanitise for that in at least the problematic sed. (IIRC that problematic sed appeared a few years back). Whereas, openjdk/icedtea should be able to compile/work ok whether without the lsb stuff present or with lsb present and returning 'n/a' for values. Thus, further, the lsb stuff should not be a assumed to be(come) a prerequisite, unless the openjdk/icedtea upstream says explicitly that it is. Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. Perhaps/probably also send same or similar patch to upstream. * on openjdk/icedtea page, a link/ref to that lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' material on lsb. Maybe even somehow formally include it in recommended/required/optional deps: but - ref notes above - I'd say at the present stage it'd be at most under 'optional', in the absence of any stronger statement from upstream. Again: that problematic sed doesn't necessarily mean that lsb is any sort of pre-requisite for openjdk/icedtea; the latter should be able to at least compile OK without lsb present or lsb present and returning 'n/a' defvals. * on lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' page, perhaps strengthen the wordings It may be a good idea It is also a good idea, and give an example of some software that uses lsb (albeit perhaps slightly only-cosmetically for at least openjdk/icedtea). Perhaps collect the lsb stuff together in its own page in lfs or early blfs, if it's deemed 'important' enough now. -- my 2c with a 5c discount the lsb_release package is not supplied by linux foundation any longer its been removed and not maintained. in a email from them every vendor needs to supply a script that provides this function however this is too declare LSB compliance. sure icedtea should handle any output likewise having sane results will be a better option as there may be problems else where. a proposal will be to return NA as opposed n/a or any other value one can assume this output will be used in sed/awk/other scripts so a friendly result is sane. thus my argument is if you have such a script you declaring compliance and will be returning valid results that are vendor not user supplied. for LSB you MUST have RPM and a installed package lsb(-VER) this needs to install the linux foundation
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Em 17-02-2014 14:34, Pierre Labastie escreveu: I do not know the icedtea installer, so I do not know how it gets its information about the LSB. But I think the best would be to consider that everything, which is in LFS, is installed (including /etc/lsb-release), and that lsb-release executable is optional. Ideally, then, the icedtea installer should be taught not to use the executable. Now, if the executable is needed for an easier installation of icedtea-JDK, then it should go to recommended. Once more: icedtea install OK without lsb_release icedtea does not install OK if lsb_release accidentally was installed, but the user did not configure it in LFS. Problem is the divide in configuring before installing, in LFS (optional), but nothing being written about configuration in BLFS. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:58:05 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org, Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] Em 17-02-2014 11:21, akhiezer escreveu: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] Em 17-02-2014 07:53, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: Em 17-02-2014 03:47, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu: Thanks for all the effort. As requested the output is: lsb_release -ds 7.4 (the are displayed in the output) lsb_release -is n/a Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if it was a successful build or not. Regards, Christopher. I think I know what happened. You forgot or did not properly http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.4/chapter09/theend.html (before doing the following as root, backup, if you have them, the two files, just for later comparison, so you will see the problem): echo 7.4 /etc/lfs-release In the following, replace your name here by what you want the codename to be. In may case, it is set by jhalfs to lfs-jhalfs. In your case, you can use christopher, lfs-christopher, anything you want. cat /etc/lsb-release EOF DISTRIB_ID=Linux From Scratch DISTRIB_RELEASE=7.4 DISTRIB_CODENAME=your name here DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION=Linux From Scratch EOF This should solve your problems. You must do this, other software needs the lsb_release output. Thus, lsb_release -ds output comes from DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION lsb_release -is output comes from DISTRIB_ID Notice, in the referred page: Linux Standards Base (LSB) This problem appeared in the support page. Second time that lsb_release gives problem, if not installed or correctly configured. So, it seems that it is becoming increasingly more important. I am thinking of changing the page in BLFS to include the configuration file, duplicating, somehow, what is in LFS. - usually a bad idea; maintenance headache, quickly gets out-of-sync ( then just plain wrong wrt relevance), thus causng new problems, etc. Sorry, akh, I do not agree with this. Well, there's ample examples of it happening. (But ref last para, below: I think there may be a language issue here re the term 'duplicating'.) After reading below, I believe you are thinking that lsb_release is on LFS, Not even remotely so. Strange interpretation ... but no, installation as a package is in BLFS. But the configuration is in LFS. This is the problem. Took a while this morning for me to get the two parts together, expected the configuration in BLFS (as it was originally), and recalled finally that it was in LFS. That was the reason I told him to install lsb_release. The core of the problem is, I'd suggest, that: openjdk/icedtea code does have a bug in that it uses lsb output, and lsb uses the string 'n/a' as a default value, and openjdk/icedtea doesn't sanitise for that in at least the problematic sed. (IIRC that problematic sed appeared a few years back). Whereas, openjdk/icedtea should be able to compile/work ok whether without the lsb stuff present or with lsb present and returning 'n/a' for values. Thus, further, the lsb stuff should not be a assumed to be(come) a prerequisite, unless the openjdk/icedtea upstream says explicitly that it is. It was a user mistake, unfortunately, due to the two parts being in different books: LFS not properly configured. I'm talking about the underlying cause. In which case, It was a user mistake ... is wrong. It's a user 'mistake' on top of an underlying bug, yes. The user should still be able to configure LSB fields with empty-values or similar: and if lsb_... then returns 'n/a', software using lsb_... should be able to handle that. Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. If I agree with this, other package in BLFS should have a patch, too. And the new programs that would be discovered to fail. And your problem is? ;) If a program's not sanitising its input properly, then do you correct the program or the input or both or neither. Per Gregory's post, if lsb script _is_ to be maintained by distros, and not by upstream, then maybe bring lsb_release 'in-house' and patch _it_ to at least not return the '/' , to get
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Em 17-02-2014 15:32, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: Em 17-02-2014 14:34, Pierre Labastie escreveu: I do not know the icedtea installer, so I do not know how it gets its information about the LSB. But I think the best would be to consider that everything, which is in LFS, is installed (including /etc/lsb-release), and that lsb-release executable is optional. Ideally, then, the icedtea installer should be taught not to use the executable. Now, if the executable is needed for an easier installation of icedtea-JDK, then it should go to recommended. Once more: Problem here is *not* icedtea. Problem here is lsb_release split in two different books. This the reason I changed the subject to lsb_release configuration. icedtea install OK without lsb_release icedtea does not install OK if lsb_release accidentally was installed, but the user did not configure it in LFS. Problem is the divide in configuring before installing, in LFS (optional), but nothing being written about configuration in BLFS. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Fernando de Oliveira wrote: Em 17-02-2014 14:34, Pierre Labastie escreveu: I do not know the icedtea installer, so I do not know how it gets its information about the LSB. But I think the best would be to consider that everything, which is in LFS, is installed (including /etc/lsb-release), and that lsb-release executable is optional. Ideally, then, the icedtea installer should be taught not to use the executable. Now, if the executable is needed for an easier installation of icedtea-JDK, then it should go to recommended. Once more: icedtea install OK without lsb_release icedtea does not install OK if lsb_release accidentally was installed, but the user did not configure it in LFS. Problem is the divide in configuring before installing, in LFS (optional), but nothing being written about configuration in BLFS. Add a sed to the lsb_release install instructions: sed -i s|n/a|unavailable| lsb_release Also add a note about configuration and point to LFS. If it's really necessary, we can create an LFS specific lsb-release-1.5 tarball. But I think that's overkill. It really is only a bash script and a man page generated from the script. -- 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] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
On 02/17/2014 08:33 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Fernando de Oliveira wrote: Em 17-02-2014 14:34, Pierre Labastie escreveu: I do not know the icedtea installer, so I do not know how it gets its information about the LSB. But I think the best would be to consider that everything, which is in LFS, is installed (including /etc/lsb-release), and that lsb-release executable is optional. Ideally, then, the icedtea installer should be taught not to use the executable. Now, if the executable is needed for an easier installation of icedtea-JDK, then it should go to recommended. Once more: icedtea install OK without lsb_release icedtea does not install OK if lsb_release accidentally was installed, but the user did not configure it in LFS. Problem is the divide in configuring before installing, in LFS (optional), but nothing being written about configuration in BLFS. Add a sed to the lsb_release install instructions: sed -i s|n/a|unavailable| lsb_release Also add a note about configuration and point to LFS. If it's really necessary, we can create an LFS specific lsb-release-1.5 tarball. But I think that's overkill. It really is only a bash script and a man page generated from the script. -- Bruce The simple fix is just to link to LFS page and say that /etc/lsb-release must be set up using the instructions in LFS. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter09/theend.html -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Em 17-02-2014 16:33, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: Fernando de Oliveira wrote: icedtea install OK without lsb_release icedtea does not install OK if lsb_release accidentally was installed, but the user did not configure it in LFS. Problem is the divide in configuring before installing, in LFS (optional), but nothing being written about configuration in BLFS. Add a sed to the lsb_release install instructions: sed -i s|n/a|unavailable| lsb_release Also add a note about configuration and point to LFS. If it's really necessary, we can create an LFS specific lsb-release-1.5 tarball. But I think that's overkill. It really is only a bash script and a man page generated from the script. OK, thanks. But I see you have already taken the ticket, thanks again. BTW, I think that $ lsb_release -v LSB Version:n/a comes from the use of the switch --alt_version_key=program_version but I am not sure. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s']
Armin K. wrote: The simple fix is just to link to LFS page and say that /etc/lsb-release must be set up using the instructions in LFS. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter09/theend.html Yup. Done. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
