Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Ken Moffat]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 08:28:47PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > > 
> > Any more thoughts on tagging or gcc-8.1 ?  The gimp-2.10.2 release
> > is expected shortly, so I figured I want a fresh system to try it
> > on.  Currently building last night's books, but on my slowest
> > current machine.
> > 
> > Or do you now expect that the packages which need fixes for gcc-8.1
> > will be few and far between ?
> 
> I have been building a lot of packages with gcc8.   I've done almost 400 so
> far including all the desktop environments (except Gnome) with almost no
> problems attributed to gcc8. I think we can forgo the gcc8 tagging.
> 
OK, that sounds good.

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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

On 05/17/2018 05:15 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:

On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:46:25PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:

On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 04:43:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:


With the gcc update, I plan to do a full BLFS build starting next weekend.
We may want to tag packages in BLFS as gcc-8 compatible as we build/test
them.  Feedback requested.


I've got too much on at the moment to think about starting gcc-8
testing.  Still trying to pin down gimp-2.10 (I've given up waiting
for 2.10.2), and firefox-60.0 is expected this coming week.

After that, I hope to do other things for a little while.


Any more thoughts on tagging or gcc-8.1 ?  The gimp-2.10.2 release
is expected shortly, so I figured I want a fresh system to try it
on.  Currently building last night's books, but on my slowest
current machine.

Or do you now expect that the packages which need fixes for gcc-8.1
will be few and far between ?


I have been building a lot of packages with gcc8.   I've done almost 400 
so far including all the desktop environments (except Gnome) with almost 
no problems attributed to gcc8. I think we can forgo the gcc8 tagging.


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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Ken Moffat]

On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:46:25PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 04:43:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > 
> > With the gcc update, I plan to do a full BLFS build starting next weekend.
> > We may want to tag packages in BLFS as gcc-8 compatible as we build/test
> > them.  Feedback requested.
> > 
> I've got too much on at the moment to think about starting gcc-8
> testing.  Still trying to pin down gimp-2.10 (I've given up waiting
> for 2.10.2), and firefox-60.0 is expected this coming week.
> 
> After that, I hope to do other things for a little while.
> 
Any more thoughts on tagging or gcc-8.1 ?  The gimp-2.10.2 release
is expected shortly, so I figured I want a fresh system to try it
on.  Currently building last night's books, but on my slowest
current machine.

Or do you now expect that the packages which need fixes for gcc-8.1
will be few and far between ?

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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Ken Moffat]

On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 01:36:05AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 
> For the dependencies - I've been using releases/pre-releases
> intermittently since 2.9.6 so I knew of them.  One thing you might
> have missed is a snafu in gimp-2.0.pc : it claims to require
> gegl-0.3 >= 0.4.0 (sed or a manual edit post-install can fix that).
> 
> The only thing I know of which definitely needs that is is g'mic :
> there was a report of the (current, maintained) qt filters not
> building with 2.10.0 this week - and a recommendation to use the
> (unmaintained) gtk filters.  But I've built the latest 2.2.3-pre
> (with the add-on qt v2.2.2 package) a few hours ago - seems to work
> although I can't open my raw files in 2.10.0 to thoroughly exercise
> g'mic, that seems to be a gimp regression since rc2 - possibly a new
> fix for nufraw will emerge.
> 

Fixed - the problem was my first attempt to fix gimp-2.0.pc (assumed
an upstream commit on its own would do it, but it didn't) - by the
time I discovered the problem (g'mic cmake errored) I'd forgotten
that nufraw might be affected.

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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Ken Moffat]

On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 01:20:19AM +0200, dueff...@uwe-dueffert.de wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> wasn't confident enough to post it before, but as an answer I'm fine with
> it:
> 
> On Sat, 5 May 2018, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 
> > I've got too much on at the moment to think about starting gcc-8
> > testing.
> gcc-8.1 was a "silent" update here. No issues seen so far, not tested
> properly either, though.
> 
> > Still trying to pin down gimp-2.10 (I've given up waiting
> > for 2.10.2),
> Only thing I had to add for 2.10 was mypaint-brushes (CMMI). Admittedly,
> there were more packages for 2.9.x already (exiv2, gexiv2, libmypaint,
> json-c for libmypaint) a few months ago, which sound useful, may be a little
> more complex, but did not cause any issues so far.
> 
> Well, BUT. gimp-2.10 needs gegl-0.4.0, which will require a patch to build
> with ffmpeg-4.0. I'm not confident enough about my patch to post it here.
> [Based on similar ffmpeg-4.0 patches found in the net.]
> 
> > firefox-60.0 is expected this coming week.
> Don't remember what exactly made me try firefox-60.0b16 - I don't usually
> try betas - but built fine for me with ffmpeg4.0 and
> system_graphite2_harfbuzz patch and no issues with it so far...
> 
> Uwe

(Long response, I'm too 'ed off by testing to trim what I'm
posting!)

Thanks for your comments - I took the patch from Arch (Pierre noted
it on the ticket).  Normally I build gimp before ffmpeg, but on this
occasion I did it the other way round - which reminded me that I had
to add the patch to my script ;)

For the dependencies - I've been using releases/pre-releases
intermittently since 2.9.6 so I knew of them.  One thing you might
have missed is a snafu in gimp-2.0.pc : it claims to require
gegl-0.3 >= 0.4.0 (sed or a manual edit post-install can fix that).

The only thing I know of which definitely needs that is is g'mic :
there was a report of the (current, maintained) qt filters not
building with 2.10.0 this week - and a recommendation to use the
(unmaintained) gtk filters.  But I've built the latest 2.2.3-pre
(with the add-on qt v2.2.2 package) a few hours ago - seems to work
although I can't open my raw files in 2.10.0 to thoroughly exercise
g'mic, that seems to be a gimp regression since rc2 - possibly a new
fix for nufraw will emerge.

But what I'm currently struggling with is the help: gimp-help-2.10.0
is some way away of (lack of developers), I've been using gimp-help
from git (not everything is there) but I wanted to try the online
help: needs gvfs at build time, and at a guess yelp and webkitgtk at
runtime - the online docs are not in html.  I'm probably going to go
with a copy of current git gimp-help, but it would be nice to sort
out the deps for the online help.

And thanks for the comment on firefox - I've got an updated patch
(just updated required versions of graphite2 and harbuzz, I think)
to match what 60betas have shipped with.  But I was hoping there
would be a newer harfbuzz release - firefox cherry-picked a patch
from harbuzz-git to avoid memory leakage, although I don't think
most of us will have a problem with the current release.  In theory
60 should be less problematic for pulseaudio (for those of us not
using systemd, which will apparently restart the daemon itself, and
not using desktop environments which manage to keep the pulseaudio
daemon running).

Cheers,

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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[dueffert]

Hi all,

wasn't confident enough to post it before, but as an answer I'm fine with 
it:


On Sat, 5 May 2018, Ken Moffat wrote:


I've got too much on at the moment to think about starting gcc-8
testing.
gcc-8.1 was a "silent" update here. No issues seen so far, not tested 
properly either, though.



Still trying to pin down gimp-2.10 (I've given up waiting
for 2.10.2),
Only thing I had to add for 2.10 was mypaint-brushes (CMMI). 
Admittedly, there were more packages for 2.9.x already (exiv2, gexiv2, 
libmypaint, json-c for libmypaint) a few months ago, which sound useful, 
may be a little more complex, but did not cause any issues so far.


Well, BUT. gimp-2.10 needs gegl-0.4.0, which will require a patch to build 
with ffmpeg-4.0. I'm not confident enough about my patch to post it here. 
[Based on similar ffmpeg-4.0 patches found in the net.]



firefox-60.0 is expected this coming week.
Don't remember what exactly made me try firefox-60.0b16 - I don't usually 
try betas - but built fine for me with ffmpeg4.0 and 
system_graphite2_harfbuzz patch and no issues with it so far...


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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Ken Moffat]

On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 04:43:49PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 
> With the gcc update, I plan to do a full BLFS build starting next weekend.
> We may want to tag packages in BLFS as gcc-8 compatible as we build/test
> them.  Feedback requested.
> 
I've got too much on at the moment to think about starting gcc-8
testing.  Still trying to pin down gimp-2.10 (I've given up waiting
for 2.10.2), and firefox-60.0 is expected this coming week.

After that, I hope to do other things for a little while.

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

Re: [lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[DJ Lucas]

On May 5, 2018 4:43:49 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs  wrote:
>I've updated the LFS book with the following:
>
>Update to gcc-8.1.0.
>Update to linux-4.16.7.
>Update to man-pages-4.16.
>Update to meson-0.46.0.
>Update to shadow-4.6.
>Update to tzdata-2018e.
>Update to xz-5.2.4.
>
>It required a sed for libelf that I derived from the patch DJ posted in
>
>the patches repo.
>
>Looking at the test logs for all the packages in Chapter 6, the only 
>things I can see that have changed are the gcc tests.  The old failures
>
>are still there:
>
>experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc
>experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc
>experimental/filesystem/operations/exists.cc
>experimental/filesystem/operations/is_empty.cc
>experimental/filesystem/operations/remove.cc
>experimental/filesystem/operations/temp_directory_path.cc
>
>The new failures are:
>
>27_io/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc
>27_io/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc
>27_io/filesystem/operations/exists.cc
>27_io/filesystem/operations/is_empty.cc
>27_io/filesystem/operations/remove.cc
>27_io/filesystem/operations/status.cc
>27_io/filesystem/operations/symlink_status.cc
>27_io/filesystem/operations/temp_directory_path.cc
>
>but they look pretty similar to the experimental/ failures.
>
>Does this look like what others get?
>
>==
>
>Currently all the outstanding tickets for LFS have been made except 
>dbus-1.12.8.  That is in a systemd build.  I'll get it eventually
>unless 
>someone beats me to it. *cough* DJ *cough*
>
>With the gcc update, I plan to do a full BLFS build starting next 
>weekend.  We may want to tag packages in BLFS as gcc-8 compatible as we
>
>build/test them.  Feedback requested.
>
>   -- Bruce
>-- 
>http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
>FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
>Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
>-- 
>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
>E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean.
>
>Click here to report this message as spam.
>https://efa.lucasit.com/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=5D90360EFB.AEDD6=0fbde43ecd88be90ade9978912fa4fd3

Working toward it... Slowly.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

[lfs-dev] gcc-8.1

[Bruce Dubbs]

I've updated the LFS book with the following:

Update to gcc-8.1.0.
Update to linux-4.16.7.
Update to man-pages-4.16.
Update to meson-0.46.0.
Update to shadow-4.6.
Update to tzdata-2018e.
Update to xz-5.2.4.

It required a sed for libelf that I derived from the patch DJ posted in 
the patches repo.


Looking at the test logs for all the packages in Chapter 6, the only 
things I can see that have changed are the gcc tests.  The old failures 
are still there:


experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc
experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc
experimental/filesystem/operations/exists.cc
experimental/filesystem/operations/is_empty.cc
experimental/filesystem/operations/remove.cc
experimental/filesystem/operations/temp_directory_path.cc

The new failures are:

27_io/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc
27_io/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc
27_io/filesystem/operations/exists.cc
27_io/filesystem/operations/is_empty.cc
27_io/filesystem/operations/remove.cc
27_io/filesystem/operations/status.cc
27_io/filesystem/operations/symlink_status.cc
27_io/filesystem/operations/temp_directory_path.cc

but they look pretty similar to the experimental/ failures.

Does this look like what others get?

==

Currently all the outstanding tickets for LFS have been made except 
dbus-1.12.8.  That is in a systemd build.  I'll get it eventually unless 
someone beats me to it. *cough* DJ *cough*


With the gcc update, I plan to do a full BLFS build starting next 
weekend.  We may want to tag packages in BLFS as gcc-8 compatible as we 
build/test them.  Feedback requested.


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