Re: [blfs-dev] firefox and gtk+-3

[Bruce Dubbs]

Fernando de Oliveira wrote:

Em 26-01-2016 21:08, Ken Moffat escreveu:

I recall trying gtk+-3 with ff-32.0 and finding the combination
unusable (my notes are in the wiki).  When 43.0 came out I noted
that gtk+-3 is now supposed to be working, but I didn't have time or
a spare box to try that (my test machine was temporarily out of
use).  Now that 44.0 is here and my test machine is again usable
(bigger drive), I've given it a go.

For safety I copied ~/.mozilla to ~/.mozilla-gtk2 in case I needed
to go back, but it is working fine.  This is with ffmpeg-2.7.5,
grepping for ffmpeg in the .so libs shows media.ffmpeg.enabled
and libavcodec-ffmpeg.so.56.  The only addition to my build is

  echo 'ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk3' >>mozconfig

(I start with most of the book's .mozconfig in the usual way, but
then from time to time I conditionally add changes such as this).

I suppose that I'll probably stay with the default gtk2 on my main
two machines, but this is definitely looking usable.



Is it time to change the book, or should we wait until after the release?


Wait and do it after 7.9 so we can have a full 6 months of testing.

  -- Bruce


--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] firefox and gtk+-3

[Ken Moffat]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:59:22AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 26-01-2016 21:08, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> > I recall trying gtk+-3 with ff-32.0 and finding the combination
> > unusable (my notes are in the wiki).  When 43.0 came out I noted
> > that gtk+-3 is now supposed to be working, but I didn't have time or
> > a spare box to try that (my test machine was temporarily out of
> > use).  Now that 44.0 is here and my test machine is again usable
> > (bigger drive), I've given it a go.
> > 
> > For safety I copied ~/.mozilla to ~/.mozilla-gtk2 in case I needed
> > to go back, but it is working fine.  This is with ffmpeg-2.7.5,
> > grepping for ffmpeg in the .so libs shows media.ffmpeg.enabled
> > and libavcodec-ffmpeg.so.56.  The only addition to my build is
> > 
> >  echo 'ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk3' >>mozconfig
> > 
> > (I start with most of the book's .mozconfig in the usual way, but
> > then from time to time I conditionally add changes such as this).
> > 
> > I suppose that I'll probably stay with the default gtk2 on my main
> > two machines, but this is definitely looking usable.
> 
> 
> Is it time to change the book, or should we wait until after the release?
> 
It's on my list of minor changes/corrections, I'll update the book
(to gtk+-3 as optional) this week.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libreoffice - failure in CppunitTest_dbaccess_firebird_test

[Ken Moffat]

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 07:49:09AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 07-02-2016 07:45, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> > Em 06-02-2016 22:37, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> >> In my current build, libreoffice failed with:
> >>
[...]
> >>
> >> Error: a unit test failed, please do one of:
> >>
> >> export DEBUGCPPUNIT=TRUE# for exception catching
> >> export CPPUNITTRACE="gdb --args"# for interactive debugging on Linux
> >> export VALGRIND=memcheck# for memory checking
> >>
> >> and retry using: make CppunitTest_dbaccess_firebird_test
> >>
> 
> >> ĸen
> >>
> > 
> > There has been problems when building in ssh or chroot. I had it a
> > couple of times. e.g.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Found another one, where I intentionally reproduced the problem via ssh:
> 
> 
> 
So, do you think we should add --disable-firebird-sdbc to the
configure ('the firebird support sometimes fails its unit test'), or
else docment it as an optional switch ?

I see you have taken the next release of LO.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] libreoffice - failure in CppunitTest_dbaccess_firebird_test

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Em 10-02-2016 13:20, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 07:49:09AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Em 07-02-2016 07:45, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
>>> Em 06-02-2016 22:37, Ken Moffat escreveu:
 In my current build, libreoffice failed with:

> [...]

 Error: a unit test failed, please do one of:

 export DEBUGCPPUNIT=TRUE# for exception catching
 export CPPUNITTRACE="gdb --args"# for interactive debugging on Linux
 export VALGRIND=memcheck# for memory checking

 and retry using: make CppunitTest_dbaccess_firebird_test

>>
 ĸen

>>>
>>> There has been problems when building in ssh or chroot. I had it a
>>> couple of times. e.g.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>
>> Found another one, where I intentionally reproduced the problem via ssh:
>>
>> 
>>
> So, do you think we should add --disable-firebird-sdbc to the
> configure ('the firebird support sometimes fails its unit test'), or
> else docment it as an optional switch ?
> 
> I see you have taken the next release of LO.
> 
> ĸen
> 

If it fails for me, we add. If not, I will (kindly) ask you to add it to
page, it is worth documenting.

I am building with system boost. The patch failed to apply, mostly for
"gave already been applied". If correct, we will all be happy. :-)

-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[blfs-dev] Python2 : static library ?

[Ken Moffat]

I noted that for Python-2.7.11 we do not mention libpython2.7.a :
not a big deal, but my script used to automatically remove that lib
at the end of the install.  I thought I had changed my script to rm
-v (so that I would get a confirmation in the log), but I forgot.

So, for the moment I am only 99% certain that this static lib still
gets installed.  If anybody can confirm its presence, I think we
ought to document it.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] Python2 : static library ?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Ken Moffat wrote:

I noted that for Python-2.7.11 we do not mention libpython2.7.a :
not a big deal, but my script used to automatically remove that lib
at the end of the install.  I thought I had changed my script to rm
-v (so that I would get a confirmation in the log), but I forgot.

So, for the moment I am only 99% certain that this static lib still
gets installed.  If anybody can confirm its presence, I think we
ought to document it.


Yes, I have it, but it seems to be in an odd location:

/usr/lib/python2.7/config/libpython2.7.a

  -- Bruce


--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] firefox and gtk+-3

[Ken Moffat]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:45:11AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> >Em 26-01-2016 21:08, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> >>I recall trying gtk+-3 with ff-32.0 and finding the combination
> >>unusable (my notes are in the wiki).  When 43.0 came out I noted
> >>that gtk+-3 is now supposed to be working, but I didn't have time or
> >>a spare box to try that (my test machine was temporarily out of
> >>use).  Now that 44.0 is here and my test machine is again usable
> >>(bigger drive), I've given it a go.
> >>
> >>For safety I copied ~/.mozilla to ~/.mozilla-gtk2 in case I needed
> >>to go back, but it is working fine.  This is with ffmpeg-2.7.5,
> >>grepping for ffmpeg in the .so libs shows media.ffmpeg.enabled
> >>and libavcodec-ffmpeg.so.56.  The only addition to my build is
> >>
> >>  echo 'ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk3' >>mozconfig
> >>
> >>(I start with most of the book's .mozconfig in the usual way, but
> >>then from time to time I conditionally add changes such as this).
> >>
> >>I suppose that I'll probably stay with the default gtk2 on my main
> >>two machines, but this is definitely looking usable.
> >
> >
> >Is it time to change the book, or should we wait until after the release?
> 
> Wait and do it after 7.9 so we can have a full 6 months of testing.
> 
>   -- Bruce
> 
I do not think gtk+-3 is necessarily the preferred option at the
moment : it works, but you have to tell configure that you want to
use it.  You also have to put up with the gtk3 vertical slider (and
horizontal too, if appropriate) which looks nice but is very thin.

We used to mention that gtk+-3 was an option : now that it works
well, I am just going to reinstate that information.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] Building with gold

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Em 10-02-2016 00:52, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> After last month's discussions on lfs-dev about building with gold, I
> thought I would give it a go.  I'll CC this to blfs-dev and
> blfs-support : if you reply, please consider which list is
> appropriate.
> 
> For those who have not encountered it, gold is a different linker,
> developed by google and supposedly much faster.  I was initially
> dubious - when I last saw comments about it (a long while ago) I
> recall that the linux kernel failed to link, perhaps only for some
> .config options, and I anticipated problems in BLFS.
> 
> I built using LFS-svn from the 2nd of this month, and BLFS from the
> 4th - my normal desktop, plus all of TeX and most of kde5.
> 
> This was with GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.26.20160125) 1.11 -
> for LFS I had to add bison to the end of chapter five and pass
>  --enable-gold --enable-plugins
> to chapter six binutils.  I managed to get a vast amount of output on
> my screen while running the tests (instead of to my test log), but
> all that my log shows for the gold summary is:
> ==
> All 3 tests passed
> ==
> 
> When I initially built gold on a completed system, I think there
> were about 225 other tests before or after that, so I need to fix my
> script (2>>&1 in the wrong place!).
> 
> I did not attempt to use gold until chapter 6 had completed (so, my
> first package was the linux kernel) and I hacked up an ld symlink at
> /usr/bin/gold/ld to avoid major changes to my scripts (i.e. just
> alter the PATH in my main scripts - this also simplifies trying to
> test if a build failure is because of gold: just drop that part of
> the PATH).
> 
> In practice, my problems were few.  A list of the packages I built
> is at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~ken/gold-tests/packages-built-with-gold-Feb-2016
> and of those only libglade [ patch now in patches ], firefox (! :
> it told me to use --disable-elf-hack
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1246416) and
> gtkimageview-1.6.4 (for ufraw : fixed with a sed which is in my
> lsit).
> 
> Please note that I did not attempt to compare build times with gold
> and regular old ld.  This was just a test to estimate how many
> packages will need fixes, and the number looks manageable.
> I also have no idea whether gold can be used when building chapter
> five.

Just to confirm what you wrote in a previous mail:



> * Switching from ld.bfd to *ld.gold* will speed things up
> dramatically if you're doing a debug build (with -g). I don't
> remember how much faster it is for non-debug builds, but I would
> guess the difference is significant.
> * Switching from GCC 4.8 to Clang 3.4 made non-debug builds go ~15%
> faster for me. This probably depends a lot on the specific compiler
> version, though. Upgrading from Fedora 20 (with GCC 4.8) to Fedora 21
> (GCC 4.9) caused my build time to increase by >20%, which was sad.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] firefox and gtk+-3

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Em 26-01-2016 21:08, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> I recall trying gtk+-3 with ff-32.0 and finding the combination
> unusable (my notes are in the wiki).  When 43.0 came out I noted
> that gtk+-3 is now supposed to be working, but I didn't have time or
> a spare box to try that (my test machine was temporarily out of
> use).  Now that 44.0 is here and my test machine is again usable
> (bigger drive), I've given it a go.
> 
> For safety I copied ~/.mozilla to ~/.mozilla-gtk2 in case I needed
> to go back, but it is working fine.  This is with ffmpeg-2.7.5,
> grepping for ffmpeg in the .so libs shows media.ffmpeg.enabled
> and libavcodec-ffmpeg.so.56.  The only addition to my build is
> 
>  echo 'ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk3' >>mozconfig
> 
> (I start with most of the book's .mozconfig in the usual way, but
> then from time to time I conditionally add changes such as this).
> 
> I suppose that I'll probably stay with the default gtk2 on my main
> two machines, but this is definitely looking usable.


Is it time to change the book, or should we wait until after the release?


-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] Python2 : static library ?

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Em 10-02-2016 16:59, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> I noted that for Python-2.7.11 we do not mention libpython2.7.a :
> not a big deal, but my script used to automatically remove that lib
> at the end of the install.  I thought I had changed my script to rm
> -v (so that I would get a confirmation in the log), but I forgot.
> 
> So, for the moment I am only 99% certain that this static lib still
> gets installed.  If anybody can confirm its presence, I think we
> ought to document it.

It is not installed:

$ porg -f python-2.7.11-1 | grep libpython2.7.a
/usr/lib/python2.7/config/libpython2.7.a


However I was instructed to only document under /usr/lib or /lib, and
had to remove the ones under a major depth, as in this case.

My script finds all of them, when I am searching libraries in the
DESTINODIR.

If you want to document, I am not against, but will defend my right to
do a big increase in the libraries listed in the book.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] Python2 : static library ?

[Ken Moffat]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:43:39PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Em 10-02-2016 16:59, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> > I noted that for Python-2.7.11 we do not mention libpython2.7.a :
> > not a big deal, but my script used to automatically remove that lib
> > at the end of the install.  I thought I had changed my script to rm
> > -v (so that I would get a confirmation in the log), but I forgot.
> > 
> > So, for the moment I am only 99% certain that this static lib still
> > gets installed.  If anybody can confirm its presence, I think we
> > ought to document it.
> 
> It is not installed:
> 
> $ porg -f python-2.7.11-1 | grep libpython2.7.a
> /usr/lib/python2.7/config/libpython2.7.a
> 
> 
> However I was instructed to only document under /usr/lib or /lib, and
> had to remove the ones under a major depth, as in this case.
> 
> My script finds all of them, when I am searching libraries in the
> DESTINODIR.
> 
> If you want to document, I am not against, but will defend my right to
> do a big increase in the libraries listed in the book.
> 
As you, and Bruce, noted - it isn't in /usr/lib and that should be
all that we care about.  For some reason I did not spot that when I
updated my script for 2.7.11, nor when I looked at it afterwards.

Personally, I continue to dispose of it (never trust Python progs
;-) but I agree we do not need to mention it in the book.

Sorry for the noise.

ĸen
-- 
This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page