Re: [blfs-dev] JSON-C 0.12 Make
Victor Wren wrote: Going through the release version of BLFS7.9. I notice the fix for JSON-C dropping out of make with an "unused variable" warning in json_tokener.c. BLFS fixes this by disabling -Werror on the whole build. The day after 0.12 was released there was a commit for this that removed the unused variable, allowing Make to finish, which seems like a more elegant fix. Works either way. https://github.com/json-c/json-c/commit/3859e99f50abe11a8dade28efa9ea3d99dfaac11 We can't keep up with a package's development repository. Not enough resources. We will be able to pick this up with their next stable release. -- 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] terminals
Em 14-03-2016 10:08, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: > Em 14-03-2016 01:00, Ken Moffat escreveu: >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 08:30:00PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> I would like to cut down the number of packages in BLFS. The maintenance >>> burden is tremendous and we have lots of duplication of capabilities. When >>> it comes to terminals, we have: >>> >>> xterm >>> gnome-terminal >>> xfce4-terminal >>> lxterminal >>> qterminal >>> konsole4 >>> konsole5 >>> >>> I propose that we remove konsole4 and gnome-terminal. >>> >> I've read your other post on gnome-terminal - glad it now works, and >> I have no objection to removing either of these. >> > > > I have no right t ask anything, but would like gnome-terminal to remain > in the book. > > >> But you missed one - rxvt-unicode aka urxvt : >> actually, I would be happy if we removed xterm (and luit) because >> rxvt-unicode is so much better (when pointed to a sensible set of >> fonts) >> >> /me decides to run ;-) >> > > Thanks, Bruce, for attending my request. -- []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] S-Lang 'make install' needs -j1?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:07:34PM +0100, ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: > > Has anybody found something like this? I don't recall any "make -j1 install" > needed in any other package. > I've never used more than -j1 when installing, I regard it as not worth the risk. Similarly, for tests (unless somebody has noted that they work ok like that). There is/was a ticket raised against openssl for 7.10, noting that parallel install sometimes failed. 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] S-Lang 'make install' needs -j1?
On 03/17/2016 11:38 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:07:34PM +0100, ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: Has anybody found something like this? I don't recall any "make -j1 install" needed in any other package. I've never used more than -j1 when installing, I regard it as not worth the risk. Similarly, for tests (unless somebody has noted that they work ok like that). There is/was a ticket raised against openssl for 7.10, noting that parallel install sometimes failed. ĸen Yes, doing "-j1" for all packages is a good choice, as it is running all available tests before a "release" build. Long build, but no doubts about how it was build. (I think LFS SBUs are also calculated for -j1) In the book there are several "make -j1" for compiling or "make -j1 check" for testing clearly marked. However I haven't found any "make -j1 install" yet. This is what I found unusual in this package. Anyways, looks like both Arch as well as Gentoo have chosen to build this package forcing -j1 and ignoring any user defined MAKEFLAGS. They probably had this issue before. Thanks! Alz. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] qtwebkit
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 04:54:45PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Trolltech has released qtwebkit-opensource-src-5.6.0.tar.xz. > (https://download.qt.io/community_releases/5.6/5.6.0/) > > It is used for libprocessui from libksysguard (I don't think it is required) > in plasma and kf5 pim (which is not yet in the book) > > The build instructions are really non standard. What I had to do was: > > source setqt5 > QT5PREFIX=$BUILDDIR/install > That sounds really weird - is BUILDDIR defined somewhere ? > sed -i '/Werror/ s/isEqual/#isEqual/' \ >Tools/qmake/mkspecs/features/unix/default_post.prf && > > syncqt.pl -version 5.6.0 Source/sync.profile && > So, it ships a perl script that needs to be told what version it is building ? That seems to be plain daft. Google suggests a version of that script has been shipped for some time in qt, but we've never had to know about it before. > Tools/Scripts/build-webkit --prefix=$QT5PREFIX \ >--qt\ >--makeargs=-j4 \ >--no-webkit2&& > > # test with 'Tools/Scripts/run-launcher' > > sudo make -C WebKitBuild/Release install > > > It does not seem to support DESTDIR or equivalent. Until now QT has always respected INSTALL_ROOT (with an underscore - documented for qt4 in the wiki because I can never remember the exact form). Did you try that ? > When I built, it wanted > to delete things from my Qt5 directory, specifically /opt/qt5/include/ > files, even though I told it to install in /tmp. > I suspect, in the absence of a DESTDIR-equivalent, it will only install in /tmp if you use --prefix=/tmp. > I did -makeargs=-j4 for timing purposes. If omitted, it uses all cores on > the system. > The "using all cores to build quicker, and then go idle" approach. Thanks for noting how to override it. > Some statistics: > > SBU: 18.2 (1689.8 seconds) > Tarball size: 33.667 MB I think we can call that 34 ;) > Build Size: 837M > Install size: 163M (stripped) > > The build/install log file is 44M > > It appears to overwrite a lot of qt5 files. At least the timestamps have > been updated. > That is worrying - that was from a real install as root ? > Dependencies: > > Qt version 5.0.0 or later > gperf (v3.0 or later) > sqlite (development files) > fontconfig (development files) > xrender (development files) > phonon (development files) > libjpeg (development files) > libpng (development files) > > Even with the --prefix above, it installs some files in the qt5 directory. > In my case libQt5WebKit.so.5.6.0 is installed in /opt/qt5/lib. > > The bottom line is that --prefix is not really honored but the location of > qt5 is used for the actual libQt5WebKit.so library and supporting files. > Does it actually install anything in the prefix ? > Right now for Qt4 we include qtwebkit on the Qt4 page. I'm inclined to put > this on a separate page immediately below Qt5. > > Comments? > > -- Bruce For qt4, I do not like having qtwebkit on the same page, although that is effectively dead now. For this one, your report that it overwrites files from qt5 makes me wonder if we should indeed do it all on one page. But I wonder how much it is needed : I suppose that comes down to what the lxqt and qupzilla devs decide - I thought qtwebkit was supposed to be going, but maybe I'm mistaken (googles ...) : looks as if QtWebEngine will be replacing it by 6.0, if I read the entrails correctly. But 5.6 is supposed to be a first long term support release of qt, so I suppose we will be stuck with qtwebkit for years. I just hope it gets vulnerability fixes. 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] S-Lang 'make install' needs -j1?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:14:05PM +0100, ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: > On 03/17/2016 11:38 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:07:34PM +0100, ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: > >> > >>Has anybody found something like this? I don't recall any "make -j1 install" > >>needed in any other package. > >> > >I've never used more than -j1 when installing, I regard it as not > >worth the risk. Similarly, for tests (unless somebody has noted > >that they work ok like that). > > > >There is/was a ticket raised against openssl for 7.10, noting that > >parallel install sometimes failed. > > > >ĸen > > > > Yes, doing "-j1" for all packages is a good choice, as it is running all > available tests before a "release" build. Long build, but no doubts about > how it was build. (I think LFS SBUs are also calculated for -j1) > To be clear: I use -j1 for tests (if I run them) unless advised that running in parallel is ok and useful (for gcc the tests run as normal, but the results are all jumbled up and the contrib file that used to sort out the results no longer seems to do anything) and for install. For everything else in a normal build I normally use -JN [ for values of N between 3 and 8, depending on what else I am doing ] when I am building the package. For the book, most of the time I use -j1 to get an accurate measurement (based on how long it took the new system to repeat an SBU : usually, slower with each new toolchain, and not consistent to more than about 5 seconds even for the same toolchain) on an SSD. At the moment, one of the desktop packages for which I have a ticket (shared-mime-info-1.6) builds ok with -j8 on my haswell (I very much doubt that more than 2 or 3 jobs actually run in parallel) but can only build if I force -j1 on my SandyBridge i3 and my Kaveri A10. >In the book there are several "make -j1" for compiling or "make -j1 check" > for testing clearly marked. However I haven't found any "make -j1 install" > yet. This is what I found unusual in this package. > As I said, I only ever use -j1 for installs (unless a package decides to override that: not everything obeys the user's CFLAGS, that does also apply to MAKEFLAGS in at least one weird package which is not in the book [ MediaInfo ] - I hack it to use what I tell it, because on the i3 (again) it brought the box to its knees running too many jobs in the build). > Anyways, looks like both Arch as well as Gentoo have chosen to build this > package forcing -j1 and ignoring any user defined MAKEFLAGS. They probably > had this issue before. > > Thanks! > Alz. > Sounds likely - I don't think many people have any need for it. /me goes off to look at my scripts: I've been using -j1 to build s-lang since last September, I presume I needed that when I was testing gnome for 7.8 on my i3. 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] qtwebkit
Ken Moffat wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 04:54:45PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Trolltech has released qtwebkit-opensource-src-5.6.0.tar.xz. (https://download.qt.io/community_releases/5.6/5.6.0/) It is used for libprocessui from libksysguard (I don't think it is required) in plasma and kf5 pim (which is not yet in the book) The build instructions are really non standard. What I had to do was: source setqt5 QT5PREFIX=$BUILDDIR/install That sounds really weird - is BUILDDIR defined somewhere ? Oh yes. Sorry. For me I usually use /tmp/packagname, but it really can be anywhere there is space. sed -i '/Werror/ s/isEqual/#isEqual/' \ Tools/qmake/mkspecs/features/unix/default_post.prf && syncqt.pl -version 5.6.0 Source/sync.profile && So, it ships a perl script that needs to be told what version it is building ? That seems to be plain daft. Google suggests a version of that script has been shipped for some time in qt, but we've never had to know about it before. Yes, I agree. I never heard of syncqt.pl before either. The comment in the file says: # Synchronizes Qt header files - internal development tool. Tools/Scripts/build-webkit --prefix=$QT5PREFIX \ --qt\ --makeargs=-j4 \ --no-webkit2&& # test with 'Tools/Scripts/run-launcher' sudo make -C WebKitBuild/Release install It does not seem to support DESTDIR or equivalent. Until now QT has always respected INSTALL_ROOT (with an underscore - documented for qt4 in the wiki because I can never remember the exact form). Did you try that ? No, but a grep reveals that it is there. I'll try that. When I built, it wanted to delete things from my Qt5 directory, specifically /opt/qt5/include/ files, even though I told it to install in /tmp. I suspect, in the absence of a DESTDIR-equivalent, it will only install in /tmp if you use --prefix=/tmp. I tried that. For $QT5PREFIX I used /tmp/qtwebkit I did -makeargs=-j4 for timing purposes. If omitted, it uses all cores on the system. The "using all cores to build quicker, and then go idle" approach. Thanks for noting how to override it. Some statistics: SBU: 18.2 (1689.8 seconds) Tarball size: 33.667 MB I think we can call that 34 ;) Yes, I was just doing c Build Size: 837M Install size: 163M (stripped) The build/install log file is 44M It appears to overwrite a lot of qt5 files. At least the timestamps have been updated. That is worrying - that was from a real install as root ? Appeared to be that way but since I install in /opt/qt-5.6.0, I was able to touch /opt/qt-5.6.0/xyz and then do 'find /opt/qt-5.6.0/ -newer /opt/qt/xyz' and found only a few files installed. Actually too few. ldd gave several 'not found' messages where I did find the missing libraries in the build directory. I need to investigate the install more. Dependencies: Qt version 5.0.0 or later gperf (v3.0 or later) sqlite (development files) fontconfig (development files) xrender (development files) phonon (development files) libjpeg (development files) libpng (development files) Even with the --prefix above, it installs some files in the qt5 directory. In my case libQt5WebKit.so.5.6.0 is installed in /opt/qt5/lib. The bottom line is that --prefix is not really honored but the location of qt5 is used for the actual libQt5WebKit.so library and supporting files. Does it actually install anything in the prefix ? Yes it did. Looked like a regular qt install -- just not the qtwebkit files. Right now for Qt4 we include qtwebkit on the Qt4 page. I'm inclined to put this on a separate page immediately below Qt5. Comments? For qt4, I do not like having qtwebkit on the same page, although that is effectively dead now. For this one, your report that it overwrites files from qt5 makes me wonder if we should indeed do it all on one page. But I wonder how much it is needed : I suppose that comes down to what the lxqt and qupzilla devs decide - I thought qtwebkit was supposed to be going, but maybe I'm mistaken (googles ...) : looks as if QtWebEngine will be replacing it by 6.0, if I read the entrails correctly. But 5.6 is supposed to be a first long term support release of qt, so I suppose we will be stuck with qtwebkit for years. I just hope it gets vulnerability fixes. Yes, me too. For a presumed stable release, this seems to be quite marginal. -- 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] S-Lang 'make install' needs -j1?
ALZ (phyglos.org) wrote: Yes, doing "-j1" for all packages is a good choice, as it is running all available tests before a "release" build. Long build, but no doubts about how it was build. (I think LFS SBUs are also calculated for -j1) Yes with the exception of automake checks. In the book there are several "make -j1" for compiling or "make -j1 check" for testing clearly marked. However I haven't found any "make -j1 install" yet. This is what I found unusual in this package. Why would you ever want to do a parallel install? How much time would you save? I understand the build and the checks, but the install is the critical part and the time saved is not significant. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
