Re: [blfs-dev] #4977: D-Bus-1.8.0: messagebus group and user already exist
On 04/25/2014 04:13 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:02:58PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: Thanks for the pointer (I have not built systemd at the moment, still trying to sort out enough details for me to have a chance of getting the whole thing working). But your use of sysctl looks unnecessarily long-winded : why not just something like this ? : sed -i 's/#LogLevel=info/LogLevel=warning/' \ /etc/systemd/system.conf I'm a bit confused. Are you referring to what's in the -dev book right now? Or the part about sysctl that I abandoned as possible but too complex? The latter - when you first mentioned it, it was the main thing that I noticed for setting the log level. The change to permit systemd was large, and mostly went in as a single commit (compare good uses of git, where there are a series of patches, hopefully each small enough to review). You have spent a few weeks on sysv-with-systemd, and got it to your liking. The rest of us have a steep learing curve, and many areas where we need to find out how to change things. For me, log level is a fairly minor thing, but with a _lot_ of scope to make the system awkward to use _when_ other things are not correct. I think examples are always useful, and had read your posting about sysctl as an example. OK. There is a learning curve. I've only gotten slightly familiar with it. However I keep picking up things. A couple of rules to keep in mind: /etc/systemd entries override /lib/systemd entries. Remove /lib/systemd entries with ln -s /dev/null /etc/systemd/whatever .network and .link files go in /etc/systemd/network/ Boot scripts are .service configuration files and go in /lib/systemd/system/ They are enabled or disabled at boot time with systemctl enable|disable name.service. Individual services are brought up or down with systemctl start|stop name.service. -- Bruce You can drop .service here. If there's no extension, .service is assumed. You need to use an extension if .socket or .timer is in question though. systemctl enable|disable service (without .service), etc. -- 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] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Em 25-04-2014 18:12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: gdm Before I start, are there any comments or issues that I should look at? Probably as soon as we have systemd support, hopefully some devs will help to get back to the book the full gnome, either editing the book or sending patches. Thus, I don't know if gdm will need to be an entry in bootscripts, but probably will have to be in systemd units. -- []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] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:12:31 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) I've been looking at the blfs bootscripts in preparation of adding support of systemd type of services. I don NOT intend to remove the current scripts, but will do something like install-sshd: install-sysv-sshd install-sysd-sshd . . That leaves 51 entries. We may also want to remove dbus as it is now installed as a part of lfs-dev. . . Before I start, are there any comments or issues that I should look at? Well it would be a pity if the 'blurring' between sysd/non-sysd that has happened in lfs, crept in to blfs too. Yes, I know you're talking about 'just' bootscripts ... for now, at least; but we'll see how it goes - it seems to be a recurring factor around sysd that it ever-pervades/interferes. A good test would be, can one still auto-calc a dep-tree from the blfs xml src, and switch on/off sysd and its dep-tree with a single yes/no parameter, and auto-build the result. It's long been possible to do that kind of thing with the xml src - and improving much in recent years re cleanness of the deps-specs: would be ... 'strange' ... to jettison that (on the b/lfs-project side, at least). Expecting a 'bullish' attitude in response to such feedback, like for lfs: but I think in this respect at least that we'd have different interpretations of what 'bullshi' might mean ... ;) . Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? rgds, akh -- 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] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
akhiezer wrote: Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? No, it was a combination of things. There were comments in the lists as well as irc that people wanted systemd. My judgement is that there are about an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. Additionally, most of the mainstream distros have gone to systemd. If we want to maintain one of our fundamental goals of being an instructional resource, we really need to address this. I personally don't like the amount of systemd components mutual interconnections. IMO, that's not really necessary from a design standpoint. However, I don't have any input into that. -- 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] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:08:10 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) akhiezer wrote: Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? No, it was a combination of things. There were comments in the lists as well as irc that people wanted systemd. My judgement is that there are about an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. Additionally, most of the mainstream distros have gone to systemd. If we want to maintain one of our fundamental goals of being an instructional resource, we really need to address this. Yes, I agree about addressing it: but the two streams in b/lfs should still be separable fairly readily; and that has been getting lessened, and unnecessarily; and it raises doubts about why. I personally don't like the amount of systemd components mutual interconnections. IMO, that's not really necessary from a design standpoint. However, I don't have any input into that. As noted before and elsewhere ( increasingly), as the 'community' gets its hands on sysd, it'll (the former) knock it into (at _least_ better) shape. akh -- 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] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
akhiezer wrote: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:08:10 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) akhiezer wrote: Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? No, it was a combination of things. There were comments in the lists as well as irc that people wanted systemd. My judgement is that there are about an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. Additionally, most of the mainstream distros have gone to systemd. If we want to maintain one of our fundamental goals of being an instructional resource, we really need to address this. Yes, I agree about addressing it: but the two streams in b/lfs should still be separable fairly readily; and that has been getting lessened, and unnecessarily; and it raises doubts about why. There is a lot more in common than not. Adding a few systemd prerequisites shouldn't be a problem. About the only differences are systemd/eudev. Additionally systemd doesn't need syslog, but those are about the only package differences. I admit that d-bus isn't needed on most servers, but it is for most desktops. The big differences are in Chapter 7. Scripts and configuration files are completely different. However that shouldn't be an issue for someone to do one or the other. I personally don't like the amount of systemd components mutual interconnections. IMO, that's not really necessary from a design standpoint. However, I don't have any input into that. As noted before and elsewhere ( increasingly), as the 'community' gets its hands on sysd, it'll (the former) knock it into (at _least_ better) shape. I'm interested if you have any personal hands on experience with systemd? Other than the admittedly different configuration files and learning curve, what's your objection? Mine is lack of flexibility as to what runs. However that's more of a theoretical issue as I've not really had a practical problem that wasn't solved fairly easily with a little research. -- 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] [blfs-book] r12997 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/applications introduction/welcome networking/netutils
On 04/25/2014 10:43 PM, ferna...@higgs.linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: fernando Date: Fri Apr 25 13:43:47 2014 New Revision: 12997 Log: poppler-0.26.0. This version breaks inkscape build. Also, qt5 sed is no longer needed, it was the upstream patch that I modified into sed back then. -- 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] [blfs-book] r12997 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/applications introduction/welcome networking/netutils
On 04/26/2014 01:54 AM, Armin K. wrote: On 04/25/2014 10:43 PM, ferna...@higgs.linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: fernando Date: Fri Apr 25 13:43:47 2014 New Revision: 12997 Log: poppler-0.26.0. This version breaks inkscape build. Also, qt5 sed is no longer needed, it was the upstream patch that I modified into sed back then. These 3 seds fix the build for me ... Waiting for it to finish to test runtime (given that I manage to find out how). sed -i /GfxColorSpace::parse/s|NULL|, NULL|g src/extension/internal/pdfinput/pdf-parser.cpp sed -i /lookupPattern/s:NULL:, NULL:g src/extension/internal/pdfinput/pdf-parser.cpp sed -i /lookupShading/s:NULL:, NULL:g src/extension/internal/pdfinput/pdf-parser.cpp -- 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] [blfs-book] r12997 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/applications introduction/welcome networking/netutils
On 04/26/2014 02:17 AM, Armin K. wrote: On 04/26/2014 01:54 AM, Armin K. wrote: On 04/25/2014 10:43 PM, ferna...@higgs.linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: fernando Date: Fri Apr 25 13:43:47 2014 New Revision: 12997 Log: poppler-0.26.0. This version breaks inkscape build. Also, qt5 sed is no longer needed, it was the upstream patch that I modified into sed back then. These 3 seds fix the build for me ... Waiting for it to finish to test runtime (given that I manage to find out how). sed -i /GfxColorSpace::parse/s|NULL|, NULL|g src/extension/internal/pdfinput/pdf-parser.cpp sed -i /lookupPattern/s:NULL:, NULL:g src/extension/internal/pdfinput/pdf-parser.cpp sed -i /lookupShading/s:NULL:, NULL:g src/extension/internal/pdfinput/pdf-parser.cpp Seems to display pdf files just fine after being built with the seds above. -- 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
