Updated BLFS to JDK-1.5.0.11 source and binary.
> Some notes:
>
> I listed the source download urls as it appears they are freely
> available without acknowloging a license agreement. Apparently,
> the license in the code is enough. You still must click on a
> link to agree to the binary downl
Simon Scheiwiller wrote:
> Yes, that would be clear ;-)
>
> Simon
>
Cool. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Thus spoke DJ Lucas:
> NO..your are completely right! :-) Rereading the OP, I had thought your
> interpretation of 'prefix' was incorrect until a few seconds ago. Now,
> what to do to make it more clear for others that will read it in the
> future? I think replacing '' with '' in the book's
> c
Simon Scheiwiller wrote:
> If I understood the sed command correctly, it replaces /usr/X11R6 in the
> files with /usr or whatever is replaced with. So /usr/X11R6 is in
> the original files and mustn't be changed, because otherwise the sed
> command wouldn't make sense at all. But if you have anot
Thus spoke DJ Lucas:
> I'm not sure I follow. The expected prefix is /usr/X11R6. If that is
> not the prefix applied to your installation of the X Window System, then
> you will need to execute the commands so that the build knows where to
> find the X Window System. Although, the '' needs to b
Simon Scheiwiller wrote:
> Hi there
>
> That part:
>
> If your X Window System is installed in any prefix other than /usr/X11R6,
> adjust as necessary and execute the following command:
>
> find . -type f -exec sed -i 's@/usr/X11R6@@g' {} \;
>
> is quite confusing. Maybe it should rather be: If
Hi there
That part:
If your X Window System is installed in any prefix other than /usr/X11R6,
adjust as necessary and execute the following command:
find . -type f -exec sed -i 's@/usr/X11R6@@g' {} \;
is quite confusing. Maybe it should rather be: If your X Window System is
installed in any pre
Jeremy Byron wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>>
>>I'll start an optimized build tonight. If it comes down to it, a patch
>>could be created to not pass OTHER_CXXFLAGS to the jar/jarutils subdirs.
>> Unfortunately, my equip is a little older, -march=athlon will have to
>>do for my testing, though we'
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> I'll start an optimized build tonight. If it comes down to it, a patch
> could be created to not pass OTHER_CXXFLAGS to the jar/jarutils subdirs.
>Unfortunately, my equip is a little older, -march=athlon will have to
> do for my testing, though we'll probably find the culp
Jeremy Byron wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>/usr/src/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/u
>>>npack-cmd/obj/main.o: In function `.L93':
>>>main.cpp:(.text+0xd1c): undefined reference to `gunzip::init(unpacker*)'
>>>main.cpp:(.text+0xd2e): undefined reference
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>
>>/usr/src/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/u
>>npack-cmd/obj/main.o: In function `.L93':
>>main.cpp:(.text+0xd1c): undefined reference to `gunzip::init(unpacker*)'
>>main.cpp:(.text+0xd2e): undefined reference to `gunzip::start(int)'
>>col
Jeremy Byron wrote:
> Has a solution for this been found? I've just received the same error
> and haven't been able to find anything but this old thread which didn't
> go anywhere.
>
> My setup:
> CPU: AMD Athlon 64 FX-53
> HOST: LFS-6.0
> LFS: SVN-20050605
> BLFS: SVN-20050621 (..and back as far
; make[7]: ***
>> [/sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/bin/unpack200]
>> Error 1
>>
>> from jdk-1.5.0. I'm using lfs-unstable.
>>
>> robert
>
>New one for me and I've built it 6 times in the past week. By any
>chance did you log t
Matthew Burgess:
> I *think* this was a bug in tar-1.15. Upgrading to 1.15.1 should allow
> jdk-1.5.0 to install correctly - I didn't have any problems with that
> version anyway.
The ChangeLog says that 1.15 had problems untarring from standard input.
Just tried with 1.15.1, an
Hans-Joachim Widmaier wrote:
Sorry for the german locale. The tar error is "This doesn't look like a tar
archive",
"Skipping to next header".
It took me some time to figure out that the culprit was tar-1.15.
I *think* this was a bug in tar-1.15. Upgrading to 1.15.
I stumbled upon this several weeks ago, but, being finally subscribed
to the list, thought I'd share it anyway, as I didn't see it mentioned.
This happened while building jdk-1.5.0:
---
rm -f /usr/src/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/lib/i386/client/Xusage.txt
cp /usr/src
El Miércoles, 11 de Mayo de 2005 10:02, Wiliam Harrington escribió:
>Found mismatched quotes in the jdk.sh line 17.
>
> CLASSPATH="${CLASSPATH}:.:${AUTO_CLASSPATH_DIR}
>
> change to
>
> CLASSPATH="${CLASSPATH}:.:${AUTO_CLASSPATH_DIR}"
Thanks, fixing it now.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuari
Hello all,
Found mismatched quotes in the jdk.sh line 17.
CLASSPATH="${CLASSPATH}:.:${AUTO_CLASSPATH_DIR}
change to
CLASSPATH="${CLASSPATH}:.:${AUTO_CLASSPATH_DIR}"
user will notice errors when /etc/profile is sourced.
bash: /etc/profile.d/jdk.sh: line 22: unexpected EOF while looking for
un_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/unpack-cmd/obj/main.o(.text+0xd8e):main.cpp:
>
> undefined reference to `gunzip::start(int)'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[7]: ***
> [/sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/26/05 14:41 CST:
> On April 26, 2005 03:13 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>Because I'm not sure what lfs-unstable is now, could you tell us
>>what version of GCC you're using. I've compiled the JDK-1.5.0
>>several times
On April 26, 2005 03:13 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Because I'm not sure what lfs-unstable is now, could you tell us
> what version of GCC you're using. I've compiled the JDK-1.5.0
> several times on 3 different x86 platforms using GCC-3.4.3 without
> any issues.
gcc
-i586/bin/unpack200] Error 1
>
> from jdk-1.5.0. I'm using lfs-unstable.
Because I'm not sure what lfs-unstable is now, could you tell us
what version of GCC you're using. I've compiled the JDK-1.5.0
several times on 3 different x86 platforms using GCC-3.4.3 without
a
86/tmp/sun/com.sun.java.util.jar.pack/unpack-cmd/obj/main.o(.text+0xd8e):main.cpp:
undefined reference to `gunzip::start(int)'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[7]: ***
[/sources/sun_java/jdk-build/control/build/linux-i586/bin/unpack200] Error 1
from jdk-1.5.0. I'm using lfs-unstab
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>
>>
>>3. It seems to be an interaction issue between KDE and OO that may well
>>show up with our build. I was just asking if someone else had seen it.
>
> So I did miss the point to some extent! ;-) To be honest I don't use
> KDE. I do have it install
now up will
certainly be helpful.
As far as jdk-1.5, if anyone wants to build that, look at the patches
project. Get all the patches in j2sdk/jdk-1.5.0* except the gcc one.
The good gcc patch is jdk/jdk-1.5.0_gcc-3.4.2+-2.patch. It builds by
the book instructions with the exception of the ve
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/18/05 21:38 CST:
> I'm not trying to be crusty, but really, Bruce, how does this fit
> in?
1. DJ brought up OO in a comment.
2. I stated (well at least implied) that I was waiting for his updates
to build Java and OO.
3. It seems to b
Archaic wrote these words on 04/18/05 22:52 CST:
> Get off your high horse, Randy. He explicitly stated why he did it and
> it did not involve avoiding the use of BLFS. If he needs the package for
> use now before he has the chance to build it, who are you to judge him
> for it?
>
> Just chill out
Archaic wrote these words on 04/18/05 22:37 CST:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:46:56PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>I'm not trying to be crusty, but really, Bruce, how does this fit
>>in?
>
> Because it may very well affect the compiled version as well. I see it
> as trying to discern whether the
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:46:56PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I'm not trying to be crusty, but really, Bruce, how does this fit
> in?
Because it may very well affect the compiled version as well. I see it
as trying to discern whether there may be a bigger problem that isn't
necessarily rela
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/18/05 21:38 CST:
> Speaking of OO, I have a minor issue. While waiting for your update, I
> went ahead and installed a binary version.
With all due respect, and with the utmost consideration for your issue,
how does this fit into a -dev issue?
Problems with a
DJ Lucas wrote:
> So left is only OpenOffice, which had a few more enums, plus
> the jurt fix I forgot about in my conglomeration patch that I made last
> night. I deleted my original patches so I had to go find it again.
> Anyway, it's compiling unohelper now so not much longer...
Speaking of O
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/17/05 22:55 CST:
>
>>Okay guys, fop appears to be good now and blfs.pdf looks good.
>
>
> I can confirm this. I had created a patch for FOP to fix the 'enum'
> issue but the Graphics2D thing stopped me a long time ago. I never
> got the ur
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/17/05 22:55 CST:
>
>>Okay guys, fop appears to be good now and blfs.pdf looks good. I'm
>>reworking the OOo to install the large jdk-1.5 patch, and testing again.
>> Also checking berkelydb now since I had no idea whether the problem
>>stil
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/17/05 22:55 CST:
> Okay guys, fop appears to be good now and blfs.pdf looks good.
I can confirm this. I had created a patch for FOP to fix the 'enum'
issue but the Graphics2D thing stopped me a long time ago. I never
got the urge to go back and figure out how to fi
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/17/05 22:55 CST:
> Okay guys, fop appears to be good now and blfs.pdf looks good. I'm
> reworking the OOo to install the large jdk-1.5 patch, and testing again.
> Also checking berkelydb now since I had no idea whether the problem
> still exists. Anyone have any
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Also checking berkelydb now since I had no idea whether the problem
> still exists.
Just checking back, but no change necessary to db except that passing
LIBSO_LIBS and LIBXSO_LIBS to make is no longer necessary.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/b
Okay guys, fop appears to be good now and blfs.pdf looks good. I'm
reworking the OOo to install the large jdk-1.5 patch, and testing again.
Also checking berkelydb now since I had no idea whether the problem
still exists. Anyone have any additional objections that have not been
discussed yet? I
Okay it works...and startup time is considerably faster, though I've
changed some build options from what is in the book. Which brings me to
a couple of quick questions.
jdk-1.5.0: The sed works, with about 150 or so javac warnings. Thanks
to Ximian's 64 bit build of OOo-1.1.4, the
38 matches
Mail list logo
