Re: [blfs-dev] vte-0.48.3

[Christoph Feikes]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:48:36 -0400, Ryan Marsaw wrote:
> On 08/27/17 06:08 AM, Christoph Feikes wrote:
>>
>> I can't build vte-0.48.3 ...
>> > I believe this has something to do with the generation of the signal
> marshallers. I got the same vte error after building the 2.53 branch of GLib.
> 
> See this for more info:
> 
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/vte/commit/?id=fa3bc86008cfe517dbb05deb4dff0059f3749c95
> 
> Ryan

I already suspected marshal.cc and marshal.h, but couldn't come up with
a solution. I succeeded with patching src/Makefile.in instead of
src/Makefile.am. Someone (Bruce?) might do 'sed magic' instead of a
patch file; beware, there are tabs ... :)

Thanks,
Christoph
diff -Naru a/src/Makefile.in b/src/Makefile.in
--- a/src/Makefile.in	2017-05-10 22:25:59.0 +0200
+++ b/src/Makefile.in	2017-08-30 21:48:31.187502353 +0200
@@ -2493,7 +2493,8 @@
 	$(AM_V_GEN) $(srcdir)/box_drawing_generate.sh < $< > $@
 
 marshal.cc: marshal.list
-	$(AM_V_GEN) $(GLIB_GENMARSHAL) --prefix=_vte_marshal --header --body --internal $< > $@
+	$(AM_V_GEN) echo '#include "marshal.h"' > $@ \
+	&& $(GLIB_GENMARSHAL) --prefix=_vte_marshal --body --internal $< >> $@
 
 marshal.h: marshal.list
 	$(AM_V_GEN) $(GLIB_GENMARSHAL) --prefix=_vte_marshal --header --internal $< > $@
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] ImageMagick-7.0.6-10 md5sum is not correct

[akhiezer]

> From: Bruce Dubbs 
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:32:38 -0500
>
> akhiezer wrote:
>
> > The matter is clearly, obviously, not about how long a single error
> > persists.
> >
> >
> > It is about how long folks remain addicted to donkey-tasks; the
> > inevitable stream, cycle, of repeated types of errors that ensue; and
> > the inevitable stream, cycle, of repeated types of donkey-tasks that
> > ensue of correcting said inevitable errors.
>
> We are waiting for you to fork blfs with a 'better way'.
>
>-- Bruce
>


If a person long-term demonstrates repeatedly that they won't, or can't,
implement properly even the handling of checksum calculations -
whether doing in-house or availing themselves of any of those already
widely implemented and readily available;
then how likely are they to be able &/or willing to avail themselves
satisfactorily of any new such placed in front of them.


It is therefore not enough in such a case, for the person to attempt
to deflect attention from the matter by asininely/ trying
to get others to implement yet another instance,
while the person's past and current behaviours, attitudes, indicate that
the person is too-likely to continue as-ever.


Instead, the person has to at least exhibit some intent,
willingness, some good-faith, that such new materials
will not be wasted on them.


It is advisable and appropriate in such a case that
an approach of 'lead to water', 'teach to fish', be used.


To that end, a reasonable suggested starting sequence
of infos, tasks, for such a person, is:
---
* implement auto-calc of checksum.
  Then add cross-checking.

* then implement auto-writing-out of the info to a file.
  Then add cross-checking.

* then implement auto-writing-out to the required place in
  the required xml/ file(s).
  Then add cross-checking.

* then implement auto-sync/commit - with cross-checking - with svn/
---
Keep a note of any issues encountered; and of any ideas
(look it up, if nec) for how the process might be improved further.


If that goes all-ok, then progress to auto-handling of date/time info;
ref above seq of steps.


Any problems, let the lists know.


It is stated perennially that a central goal, pillar, of b/lfs is education;
is the person per the above, willing &/or able to allow themselves to learn.


Folks, I know that you may be hurting to be queried: if
you at core know and understand the matter -
the issues and resolutions - and will improve,
then that's the main thing,
and relegates the protestations-too-much to where they belong.



akh





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

Re: [blfs-dev] ImageMagick-7.0.6-10 md5sum is not correct

[akhiezer]

> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:26:32 +0100
> From: Ken Moffat 
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:19:42PM +0100, akhiezer wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:44:13 +0100
> > > From: Ken Moffat 
> > >
> > >
> > > I look forward to your fork where you show us how to automate this.
> > > Bonus points for using no more than 4 cores on machines with more
> > > cores (for things using rust and ninja).  More bonus points for not
> > > requiring user input to specify which files to read for
> > > measurements.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Here's a clue: break the problem down: start with (for you) low-hanging
> > fruit: how about you start with checksums; and then maybe progress to
> > dates; see if you can manage that first.
> > 
> > 
> > Then you might start to get some vision - taste, abilities, even -
> > for the parts that currently seem to be over-the-horizon difficult for
> > you. But do keep breaking the problem down into manageable pieces.
> > 
>
> Thanks for your expressed lack of confidence in my taste and vision.
> Your comment on my lack of ability is, of course, well-founded - but
> since the project lacks skilled and able contributors, I try to
> contribute what I can.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I _use_ parts of BLFS, so I try to ensure
> they are up to date.  Anything more is a distraction - sometimes the
> distractions are interesting, other times not.
>
> So no, taking time out to figure out how to automate finding the
> md5sums in the book, as a first step towards comparing them, is not
> attractive.
>
> We work with what we have.  If we started today, I very much doubt
> that the book would be structured as it is - a new structure *might*
> support some of your proposed automation, it might not.  So, it is
> up to you to fork at least a proof of concept.  However, I suspect
> that I at least will not share your taste.
>
> Either you really are keen to contribute, or it's just another excuse
> to be passive-aggressive.  I'll be charitable, so "Enjoy forking, and
> let us know when you have a proof of concept."
>


Might such lazy facile attempted 'pssv/aggrsv' labelling be,
rather, applied to your reactions at your poor practices
being at least queried.


Wrong instructions and other wrong infos are being put
into the book - the central repo - that have not even been
tested and verified-ok; letting others hit the problems.


And you try to nay-say when queried about your practices
and urged to change and not just keep repeating the cycle.
Who do you think you are. The issues are not so much just
about abilities per se; it's also attitude.


A person's own repo should be in order before
pushing to central.


Your talk-to-the-hand final position statement is
interestingly attemptedly high-handed.

Demonstrate ability to learn and improve, such that
you might learn from such materials.

To get you started on the first steps towards improvement,
ref the initial getting-you-started checklists in the note
to your similarly-postured colleague.


Folks, I know that you may be hurting to be queried: if
you at core know and understand the matter -
the issues and resolutions - and will improve,
then that's the main thing,
and relegates the protestations-too-much to where they belong.



akh





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