Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Christopher, If by any chance you are using /etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh from the book, I committed a mistake. Delete the lines # Adjust MANPATH pathappend $JAVA_HOME/man MANPATH Check that you have MANDATORY_MANPATH /opt/jdk/man MANPATH_MAP /opt/jdk/bin /opt/jdk/man MANDB_MAP /opt/jdk/man /var/cache/man/jdk in /etc/man_db.conf Then run again as root: mandb -c /opt/jdk/man Test that man bash, man man, and others are working as are man java. If you have any problem, please contact the list and we will try to solve the problem. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Em 17-02-2014 03:47, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu:
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:58:02 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed
unknown
option to `s'
Em 15-02-2014 08:29, akhiezer escreveu:
From blfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Fri Feb 14 13:19:25
2014
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:13:47 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed
unknown
option to `s'
.
.
I am trying to understand this better, and have found that configure
and
configure.ac have mentions to lsb_release. I am trying to understand
if
it is a required, recommended or optional dependency. However, in one
machine I do not have it installed and it gives me linux-gnu and
builds
fine, so, I am intending to add as optional.
What do you all think about this? I cannot understand why
Christopher's
is getting n/a.
In the following, I am writing some observations and guesses.
In configure, for 2.4.4, which is a build dir still in place in yet
another machine, I see:
{{{
if test -n $ac_tool_prefix; then
# Extract the first word of ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release, so it
can
be a program name with args.
set dummy ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release; ac_word=$2
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for $ac_word 5
$as_echo_n checking for $ac_word... 6; }
if ${ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE+:} false; then :
$as_echo_n (cached) 6
else
case $LSB_RELEASE in
[\\/]* | ?:[\\/]*)
ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE=$LSB_RELEASE # Let the user override the
test
with a path.
;;
*)
as_save_IFS=$IFS; IFS=$PATH_SEPARATOR
}}}
Also, I noticed that he is building at /opt, so probably as root. I
have:
{{{
$ xzgrep -C6 distro_name
/home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
}}}
Yes, tracing through the code indicates that the problem may be
stemming from 'lsb_release -is' outputting 'n/a' (others on web have
reported various breakages - not just re icedtea - that seem to stem
from lsb_release using 'n/a' as a return value - and the code that
uses
said output not sanitising its own input).
The following is working from blfs-svn
('OpenJDK-1.7.0.51/IcedTea-2.4.5'
,
'http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/openjdk.html'),
but should be similar for blfs-7.4 (I've broken/re-wrapped some of the
longer outputted lines):
(0) # Unpack src tarballs into . for the purposes of following greps.
NB
that this is not making any suggestion on how you should unpack
stuff for the build: follow the book for that, of course.
(1) grep -r '@@distro_name@@' .
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(2) grep -r 'DISTRO_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(3) grep -r 'DIST_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/ChangeLog: DIST_NAME to build.
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure:DIST_NAME
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure: DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed
's/^//;s/$//')
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure: DIST_NAME=$build_os
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4: DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed
's/^//;s/$//')
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4: DIST_NAME=$build_os
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4:AC_SUBST(DIST_NAME)
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:DIST_NAME = @DIST_NAME@
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
(4) grep -lrE 'LSB_RELEASE
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:47:48 +1300
From: m...@pc-networking-services.com
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
.
.
I remember having sometime ago problems with PATH, for some packages,
if
I build as root, and for those, I have a line in the script:
source /etc/profile
and the PATH is well defined, because he needs:
export CLASSPATH=.:/usr/share/java
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin
or similar, if the binary is another one, i.e., the binary has to be
in
the path, and, in my case, it is provided by:
/etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh
which is defined in OJDK/Icedtea BLFS page.
Yes, tracing through the code indicates that the problem may be
stemming from 'lsb_release -is' outputting 'n/a' (others on web have
reported various breakages - not just re icedtea - that seem to stem
from lsb_release using 'n/a' as a return value - and the code that
uses
said output not sanitising its own input).
The following is working from blfs-svn
('OpenJDK-1.7.0.51/IcedTea-2.4.5'
,
'http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/openjdk.html'),
but should be similar for blfs-7.4 (I've broken/re-wrapped some of the
longer outputted lines):
(0) # Unpack src tarballs into . for the purposes of following greps.
NB
that this is not making any suggestion on how you should unpack
stuff for the build: follow the book for that, of course.
(1) grep -r '@@distro_name@@' .
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(2) grep -r 'DISTRO_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(3) grep -r 'DIST_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/ChangeLog: DIST_NAME to build.
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure:DIST_NAME
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure: DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed
's/^//;s/$//')
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure: DIST_NAME=$build_os
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4: DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed
's/^//;s/$//')
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4: DIST_NAME=$build_os
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4:AC_SUBST(DIST_NAME)
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:DIST_NAME = @DIST_NAME@
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
(4) grep -lrE 'LSB_RELEASE|build_os' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/ChangeLog
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure.ac
(5) From the files in '(4)', you can see that build_os is only set
if there's no LSB_RELEASE / lsb_release *detected* (which doesn't
necessarily mean that you've not got it present).
I'd suggest tracing the execution of './configure ...' to verify
that
the variables it's using, and the code paths that it thus follows,
are what you're expecting them to be. A crude but simple
effective
way to do that, is to stick in 'echo ' lines at judicious
places,
mainly in './icedtea-2.4.5/configure' - and with, per earlier post
today, appropriate marker text strings so that you can readily
grep/locate them from the logged output /or stdout/stderr.
hth,
akh
--
Many thanks again, akh. Read quickly your mail (obliged to do other
things, as I wrote earlier), and seems very good analysis indeed.
But still spent some time with this, reading the config.log (it is fast
to do it to this point).
In one machine, I have:
{{{
DIST_ID='Custom build (Sat Feb 15 08:33:10 BRT 2014)'
DIST_NAME='linux-gnu'
}}}
In another:
{{{
DIST_ID='Linux From Scratch, package '\''7u51-2.4.4-blfs'\'''
DIST_NAME='Linux From Scratch'
}}}
First one does not have lsb_release, second one does:
$ env LC_ALL=C which lsb_release
which: no lsb_release in
(/usr/local/bin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/opt/gnome/bin:/opt/ant/bin:/opt/openjdk/bin:/opt/qt/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin)
$ grep -ri linux-gnu /etc/ 2/dev/null
/etc/gtk-2.0/gtk.immodules:# ModulesPath =
/root/.gtk-2.0/2.10.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/root/.gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules:/root/.gtk-2.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/root/.gtk-2.0/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/immodules
I cannot believe that it is taking
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Guys, I appreciate you bottom posting, but could you please trim the unnecessary quoted text. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:47:48 +1300 From: m...@pc-networking-services.com To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' . . Not exactly sure what you wish me to try. I have no problem with attempting to install a later version if needs be. Please let me know what to try. I did install the version listed as stable in the 7.4 book. It was that one which I replaced the / with a % sign. Was the only way to get it to build, and hence why I am not sure if it was a successful build or not. Christopher, sorry, here's a more-direct answer to your questions. The change that you made, should be all-OK for your build and subsequent use of the software. It would be even better if you changed the 'n/a' to 'Linux From Scratch' (without the quotes, in each case). Then, any problems that you encounter with the build/use of the software, are likely to be caused by other things, and not this particular change: i.e. the present change is unlikely to have knock-on effects. Some more detail: I've re-read your original posts, incl your post in reply to Bruce: R617 Bruce Dubbs Fri Feb 14 17:19 104/5109 \ \Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' R622 me@pc-networking-s Fri Feb 14 20:21 177/7924 \ \Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' In that reply, it _sounds_ like you worked around the problem by making the change: == file: you don't specify explicitly, but sounds like jdk Makefile? old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n%a/g' \ == I.e. you changed 'n/a' to 'n%a' (without the quotes, in both cases). Is that the change you made? If so, then you should be OK. You'd be (even) better, though, to change the 'n/a' to something like 'Linux From Scratch'. And even better, do the recommended LSB config that's at LFS page 'chapter09/theend.html' , and per Fernando's notes in present thread. Note that - if I may say - Bruce was likely meaning to make a slightly different change from what you actually did: it'd normally be meant that you change the _delimiter_ for sed, rather than (in this case) the 'n/a' value itself. Thus (using '%' as the sed-delimiter): -- old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's%@@distro_name@@%n/a%g' \ -- or (using '|' as the sed-delimiter): -- old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's|@@distro_name@@|n/a|g' \ -- or (using ':' as the sed-delimiter): -- old-line: -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ new-line: -e 's:@@distro_name@@:n/a:g' \ -- , and so on. D'you see how, with those non-'/' delimiters for sed, the '/' in the string-value 'n/a' is no longer ambiguous - sed now sees it as part of an ordinary string-value, and doesn't interpret it as a delimiter. Whereas in the original code, the sed-delimiter _is_ '/', and so sed gets confused by the 'n/a' string - sed in that case thinks that the '/' in 'n/a' is somehow a(nother) delimiter character, and so sed gets confused because it now looks like there are four delimiters overall and that the expression is garbled. As noted, what you _seem_ to have done, in your change, is to retain the three '/' delimiters, and change the 'n/a' string-value to 'n%a'; and then things compiled apparently-OK. You could've changed from 'n/a' to 'n_a', or to 'not-applic', or to 'scooby_doo--16', etc, and things'd still work. That's because the new/replacement string-value doesn't contain characters that cause ambiguity in the context. On the other hand, if you took 'n/a' and changed it to, say n\a or n'a or n\\a then you're (more) likely to hit problems, because there are chars there that'll likely cause ambiguity when they're substituted in place of the n/a in that sed expression. In related vein, it's probably prudent to not use 'n%a', in case the '%' causes similar ambiguity c further down the line. You're probably better - in this case - to avoid any chars that might be subject to such 'special interpretation' by sed/grep/awk/cc. Hence partly why it's suggested that you change the 'n/a' to something like 'Linux From Scratch': not only does it contain more-useful info, but it avoids chars like '%' that might get interpreted ambiguously somewhere down the line. The long-ish chains of content (outputs from greps, snippets of configure logs, c) in many posts of the present thread, were just folks trying to diagnose where the problem was originating. And then there are sort-of ongoing, perhaps just-about-to-complete, chains of discussion about how to address the underlying cause of the problem. So apols if/that your particular case - e.g. what does all this mean in practice for your work-around build - was perhaps seeming obscured and neglected by that. hth, akhiezer
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:58:02 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed
unknown
option to `s'
Em 15-02-2014 08:29, akhiezer escreveu:
From blfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Fri Feb 14 13:19:25
2014
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:13:47 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed
unknown
option to `s'
.
.
I am trying to understand this better, and have found that configure
and
configure.ac have mentions to lsb_release. I am trying to understand
if
it is a required, recommended or optional dependency. However, in one
machine I do not have it installed and it gives me linux-gnu and
builds
fine, so, I am intending to add as optional.
What do you all think about this? I cannot understand why
Christopher's
is getting n/a.
In the following, I am writing some observations and guesses.
In configure, for 2.4.4, which is a build dir still in place in yet
another machine, I see:
{{{
if test -n $ac_tool_prefix; then
# Extract the first word of ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release, so it
can
be a program name with args.
set dummy ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release; ac_word=$2
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for $ac_word 5
$as_echo_n checking for $ac_word... 6; }
if ${ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE+:} false; then :
$as_echo_n (cached) 6
else
case $LSB_RELEASE in
[\\/]* | ?:[\\/]*)
ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE=$LSB_RELEASE # Let the user override the
test
with a path.
;;
*)
as_save_IFS=$IFS; IFS=$PATH_SEPARATOR
}}}
Also, I noticed that he is building at /opt, so probably as root. I
have:
{{{
$ xzgrep -C6 distro_name
/home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
}}}
I remember having sometime ago problems with PATH, for some packages,
if
I build as root, and for those, I have a line in the script:
source /etc/profile
and the PATH is well defined, because he needs:
export CLASSPATH=.:/usr/share/java
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin
or similar, if the binary is another one, i.e., the binary has to be
in
the path, and, in my case, it is provided by:
/etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh
which is defined in OJDK/Icedtea BLFS page.
Yes, tracing through the code indicates that the problem may be
stemming from 'lsb_release -is' outputting 'n/a' (others on web have
reported various breakages - not just re icedtea - that seem to stem
from lsb_release using 'n/a' as a return value - and the code that
uses
said output not sanitising its own input).
The following is working from blfs-svn
('OpenJDK-1.7.0.51/IcedTea-2.4.5'
,
'http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/openjdk.html'),
but should be similar for blfs-7.4 (I've broken/re-wrapped some of the
longer outputted lines):
(0) # Unpack src tarballs into . for the purposes of following greps.
NB
that this is not making any suggestion on how you should unpack
stuff for the build: follow the book for that, of course.
(1) grep -r '@@distro_name@@' .
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(2) grep -r 'DISTRO_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(3) grep -r 'DIST_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/ChangeLog: DIST_NAME to build
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:21:46 +1300 From: m...@pc-networking-services.com To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' m...@pc-networking-services.com wrote: Hello, This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th. . . I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb and no responce there either. I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the at the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error message. I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown way create errors down the track if compilation was successful. . . Hello, Thank you all for your respnses. I neede to clarify a few things: First off, yes I was compiling this as ROOT and yes I know that many say this is a very bad idea blah blah blah. My path when compiling this was set as per stock standard blfs/lfs book. Even though I am a seasoned linux/unix user this is the first time I have decided to do things from scratch. I do know that it was the fifth expression that sed was apparently choking on. Before I posted this message I had gone through the compilation stage at least 4 times deleting all working directories before trying again. I even rebooted the machine to make sure that no garbage was in the path's etc. I made sure that the path was set correctly. Now with regards to what Bruce has stated. I WAS able to get it to compile by replacing that offending / with a % sign. I still do not know if by replacing it with a % sign that the actual java installation is as bug free as it could be. I tried other characters and in my case it did not like them. I can not remember exactly which others I tried as it was a number. I had to edit that offending Make file to do the changes, which if that is indeed needed to fix the build on an LFS/BLFS either a patch needs to be included or perhaps an entry in the user notes or even on the JAVA installation page needs to be made. My apologies for the confusion as to stating the developers website. I always class the developers website for source code as the one that is the official site, ie in this case iced tea in the url. I understand that the lfs/blfs community also has developers for the books and the patches. I guess I really do need a little confirmation that by replacing the / with the % sign that I have not broken anything that has yet to be discovered. If someone is willing to rebuild as per the blfs book, ie coming from a fresh build of lfs to blfs and installing java as per the instructions and editing that particular Make file and adding the % sign that it is actually installing properly and not giving a false impression I would greatly appreciate it. I think it's reasonable to suggest that you edit the makefile and echo the value of PATH (/or similar) immediately before and after the 'offending' place(s); include some marker-text that you can grep/locate readily in the output to logfile/stdout/stderr. (Or, use shell /or make's own tracing facilities). Then, you can see if the value of PATH (c) is _really_ as you think it is. rgds, akhiezer -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Em 15-02-2014 06:05, akhiezer escreveu: I think it's reasonable to suggest that you edit the makefile and echo the value of PATH (/or similar) immediately before and after the 'offending' place(s); include some marker-text that you can grep/locate readily in the output to logfile/stdout/stderr. (Or, use shell /or make's own tracing facilities). Then, you can see if the value of PATH (c) is _really_ as you think it is. Thanks, akh. The problem is in configure, make problem is a consequence. Configure is not identifying the operating system, in the problem case. I thus assume that the system has some misconfiguration. In my case, it gives something like linux-gnu in one system without lsb_release, and Linux From Scratch in others with. I suggested him to test if a *very* simple install, lsb-release, would solve the problem. I have already edited the book, yesterday, to include it as optional requirement to OpenJDK, fixed at revision 12706: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/changeset/12706 Including echo is a good idea. In this case, echo $ac_tool_prefix. I cannot remember the other places, but in configure or configure.ac, a variable DISTRO should give one of the two cases I wrote in previous post. This is probably my last post in this subject for a while. I spent much time yesterday trying to help with this problem, but you know that we are in a package freeze starting later today, leading to BLFS-7.5, so I will have to build LFS-7.5-rc1 and most of the 750+ packages of BLFS-7.5-rc1. There are some things I have to do before starting that (move 7.4 to another host, after 7.5 is built is the most important one). As the only developer of OJDK at the moment, I will have to tag it. When doing it, I will take a look at configure, trying to trace from where it takes the DISTRO value, try to remember to do it before lsb_release. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Em 15-02-2014 08:29, akhiezer escreveu:
From blfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Fri Feb 14 13:19:25 2014
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:13:47 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
.
.
I am trying to understand this better, and have found that configure and
configure.ac have mentions to lsb_release. I am trying to understand if
it is a required, recommended or optional dependency. However, in one
machine I do not have it installed and it gives me linux-gnu and builds
fine, so, I am intending to add as optional.
What do you all think about this? I cannot understand why Christopher's
is getting n/a.
In the following, I am writing some observations and guesses.
In configure, for 2.4.4, which is a build dir still in place in yet
another machine, I see:
{{{
if test -n $ac_tool_prefix; then
# Extract the first word of ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release, so it can
be a program name with args.
set dummy ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release; ac_word=$2
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for $ac_word 5
$as_echo_n checking for $ac_word... 6; }
if ${ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE+:} false; then :
$as_echo_n (cached) 6
else
case $LSB_RELEASE in
[\\/]* | ?:[\\/]*)
ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE=$LSB_RELEASE # Let the user override the test
with a path.
;;
*)
as_save_IFS=$IFS; IFS=$PATH_SEPARATOR
}}}
Also, I noticed that he is building at /opt, so probably as root. I have:
{{{
$ xzgrep -C6 distro_name
/home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
}}}
I remember having sometime ago problems with PATH, for some packages, if
I build as root, and for those, I have a line in the script:
source /etc/profile
and the PATH is well defined, because he needs:
export CLASSPATH=.:/usr/share/java
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin
or similar, if the binary is another one, i.e., the binary has to be in
the path, and, in my case, it is provided by:
/etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh
which is defined in OJDK/Icedtea BLFS page.
Yes, tracing through the code indicates that the problem may be
stemming from 'lsb_release -is' outputting 'n/a' (others on web have
reported various breakages - not just re icedtea - that seem to stem
from lsb_release using 'n/a' as a return value - and the code that uses
said output not sanitising its own input).
The following is working from blfs-svn ('OpenJDK-1.7.0.51/IcedTea-2.4.5'
, 'http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/openjdk.html'),
but should be similar for blfs-7.4 (I've broken/re-wrapped some of the
longer outputted lines):
(0) # Unpack src tarballs into . for the purposes of following greps. NB
that this is not making any suggestion on how you should unpack
stuff for the build: follow the book for that, of course.
(1) grep -r '@@distro_name@@' .
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(2) grep -r 'DISTRO_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME) openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk
;
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME) openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk
;
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(3) grep -r 'DIST_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME) openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk
;
./icedtea-2.4.5/ChangeLog: DIST_NAME to build.
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure:DIST_NAME
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure: DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed
's/^//;s/$//')
./icedtea-2.4.5/configure: DIST_NAME=$build_os
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4: DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed
's/^//;s/$//')
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4: DIST_NAME=$build_os
./icedtea-2.4.5/acinclude.m4:AC_SUBST(DIST_NAME
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:58:02 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
Em 15-02-2014 08:29, akhiezer escreveu:
From blfs-support-boun...@linuxfromscratch.org Fri Feb 14 13:19:25 2014
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:13:47 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
.
.
I am trying to understand this better, and have found that configure and
configure.ac have mentions to lsb_release. I am trying to understand if
it is a required, recommended or optional dependency. However, in one
machine I do not have it installed and it gives me linux-gnu and builds
fine, so, I am intending to add as optional.
What do you all think about this? I cannot understand why Christopher's
is getting n/a.
In the following, I am writing some observations and guesses.
In configure, for 2.4.4, which is a build dir still in place in yet
another machine, I see:
{{{
if test -n $ac_tool_prefix; then
# Extract the first word of ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release, so it can
be a program name with args.
set dummy ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release; ac_word=$2
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for $ac_word 5
$as_echo_n checking for $ac_word... 6; }
if ${ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE+:} false; then :
$as_echo_n (cached) 6
else
case $LSB_RELEASE in
[\\/]* | ?:[\\/]*)
ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE=$LSB_RELEASE # Let the user override the test
with a path.
;;
*)
as_save_IFS=$IFS; IFS=$PATH_SEPARATOR
}}}
Also, I noticed that he is building at /opt, so probably as root. I have:
{{{
$ xzgrep -C6 distro_name
/home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
}}}
I remember having sometime ago problems with PATH, for some packages, if
I build as root, and for those, I have a line in the script:
source /etc/profile
and the PATH is well defined, because he needs:
export CLASSPATH=.:/usr/share/java
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin
or similar, if the binary is another one, i.e., the binary has to be in
the path, and, in my case, it is provided by:
/etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh
which is defined in OJDK/Icedtea BLFS page.
Yes, tracing through the code indicates that the problem may be
stemming from 'lsb_release -is' outputting 'n/a' (others on web have
reported various breakages - not just re icedtea - that seem to stem
from lsb_release using 'n/a' as a return value - and the code that uses
said output not sanitising its own input).
The following is working from blfs-svn ('OpenJDK-1.7.0.51/IcedTea-2.4.5'
, 'http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/openjdk.html'),
but should be similar for blfs-7.4 (I've broken/re-wrapped some of the
longer outputted lines):
(0) # Unpack src tarballs into . for the purposes of following greps. NB
that this is not making any suggestion on how you should unpack
stuff for the build: follow the book for that, of course.
(1) grep -r '@@distro_name@@' .
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(2) grep -r 'DISTRO_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.in:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./jdk-9db88c18e114/make/java/version/Makefile:
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/$(DISTRO_NAME)/g' \
(3) grep -r 'DIST_NAME' .
./icedtea-2.4.5/Makefile.am:
echo DISTRO_NAME=$(DIST_NAME)
openjdk/jdk/make/common/shared/Defs.gmk ;
./icedtea-2.4.5/ChangeLog: DIST_NAME to build
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Em 15-02-2014 10:41, akhiezer escreveu:
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:58:02 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
Many thanks again, akh. Read quickly your mail (obliged to do other
things, as I wrote earlier), and seems very good analysis indeed.
But still spent some time with this, reading the config.log (it is fast
to do it to this point).
In one machine, I have:
{{{
DIST_ID='Custom build (Sat Feb 15 08:33:10 BRT 2014)'
DIST_NAME='linux-gnu'
}}}
In another:
{{{
DIST_ID='Linux From Scratch, package '\''7u51-2.4.4-blfs'\'''
DIST_NAME='Linux From Scratch'
}}}
First one does not have lsb_release, second one does:
$ env LC_ALL=C which lsb_release
which: no lsb_release in
(/usr/local/bin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/opt/gnome/bin:/opt/ant/bin:/opt/openjdk/bin:/opt/qt/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin)
$ grep -ri linux-gnu /etc/ 2/dev/null
/etc/gtk-2.0/gtk.immodules:# ModulesPath =
/root/.gtk-2.0/2.10.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/root/.gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules:/root/.gtk-2.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/root/.gtk-2.0/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/immodules:/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/immodules
I cannot believe that it is taking
Second machine:
$ which lsb_release
/usr/bin/lsb_release
$ lsb_release -ds
Linux From Scratch
Configure search for DIST_NAME in:
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking build identification 5
$as_echo_n checking build identification... 6; }
if test -n $LSB_RELEASE; then
lsb_info=$($LSB_RELEASE -ds | sed 's/^//;s/$//')
if test x$PKGVERSION = xnone; then
DIST_ID=Built on $lsb_info ($(date))
else
DIST_ID=$lsb_info, package $PKGVERSION
fi
DIST_NAME=$($LSB_RELEASE -is | sed 's/^//;s/$//')
else
DIST_ID=Custom build ($(date))
DIST_NAME=$build_os
fi
Thus, it should be able to find using the variable build_os, which seems
to be defined in configure at:
# Remember, the first character of IFS is used to create $*,
# except with old shells:
build_os=$*
Value is defined everywhere, including Makefile, only after configure is
run:
Makefile:build_os = linux-gnu
config.status:S[build_os]=linux-gnu
config.log:build_os='linux-gnu'
I still do not understand how it gets this value.
I have to stop, now.
(Yes, likewise here doing this in parallel.)
I think that it looks like Christopher (OP) config _is_ finding and
executing 'lsb_release -is' ( likely also 'lsb_release -ds'), and
it's the 'lsb_release -is' that's returning the 'n/a' - iirc
usually from/via '/etc/lsb_release' or similar.
Christopher, can you confirm if your build environment does have
'lsb_release -is', and if so what does it output? And similarly for
'lsb_release -ds' ?
For ref:
$ grep -r 'n/a' ./lsb-release-1.4/
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:MSG_NA=n/a
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:echo -e $MSG_LSBVER$LSB_VERSION
# at least n/a
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release.examples:LSB Version:n/a
$
$ grep -r MSG_NA ./lsb-release-1.4/
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:MSG_NA=n/a
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $LSB_VERSION ] LSB_VERSION=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $DISTRIB_ID ]
DISTRIB_ID=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $DISTRIB_RELEASE ]
DISTRIB_RELEASE=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $DISTRIB_CODENAME ]
DISTRIB_CODENAME=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $DISTRIB_ID ]
DISTRIB_ID=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $DISTRIB_RELEASE ]
DISTRIB_RELEASE=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:[ -z $DISTRIB_CODENAME ]
DISTRIB_CODENAME=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release:DISTRIB_ID=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release: DISTRIB_RELEASE=$MSG_NA
./lsb-release-1.4/lsb_release: DISTRIB_CODENAME=$MSG_NA
$
rgds,
akh
I see, now. Thanks. Hope this will lead to solve his problem in a clean way.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:14:25 +1300 From: m...@pc-networking-services.com To: blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' Hello, This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th. I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb and no responce there either. I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the at the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error message. I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown way create errors down the track if compilation was successful. It would seem to me that no one has actually followed the printed instructions through to see if it actually does compile. I am by no means a newbie to linux. I have done technical writing and have followed through the instructions that I wrote to make sure there were no errors. make[5]: Entering directory `/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version' /bin/mkdir -p /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc rm -f /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java rm -f /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp /bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \ -e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-BLFS/g' \ -e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-BLFS-b31/g' \ -e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \ -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ That '/n/a/g' looks not right - one too many '/' chars? And note - re sed errmsg below - that _that_ is the fifth '-e' expr. hth, akh -e 's/@@distro_package_version@@//g' \ -e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \ -e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \ -e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \ ../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp /bin/sed: -e expression #5, char 21: unknown option to `s' make[5]: *** [/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java] Error 1 make[5]: Leaving directory `/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version' make[4]: *** [all] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory `/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java' I really would appreciate it if someone could actually check and see if they get a successful compilation without going through and having to edit the Makefile. It is a long build for me as I only have a duel core processor. I tried the compilation several times, each time totally deleting the build directory to make sure that there were no left over files. It would seem that if the developer is not even interested in acknowledging the error that we are on our own with it. Regards, Christopher -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
On 02/14/2014 10:32 AM, akhiezer wrote: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:14:25 +1300 From: m...@pc-networking-services.com To: blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' Hello, This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th. I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb and no responce there either. I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the at the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error message. I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown way create errors down the track if compilation was successful. It would seem to me that no one has actually followed the printed instructions through to see if it actually does compile. I am by no means a newbie to linux. I have done technical writing and have followed through the instructions that I wrote to make sure there were no errors. make[5]: Entering directory `/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version' /bin/mkdir -p /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc rm -f /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java rm -f /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp /bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \ -e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-BLFS/g' \ -e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-BLFS-b31/g' \ -e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \ -e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \ That '/n/a/g' looks not right - one too many '/' chars? And note - re sed errmsg below - that _that_ is the fifth '-e' expr. hth, akh Indeed, like distro_name is set to n/a by configure or whatever java uses. You could look for a switch that overrides it but I think someone would notice it if it was present in the default BLFS setup. If you modified the official instructions for some reason, try first with the default ones and see if it works. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Em 14-02-2014 06:14, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu:
Hello,
This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation
e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting
the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th.
I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb
and no responce there either.
I cannot find your message in my archives nor at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/maillist.html
What do you mean by developers website? Please, can you give me the
address, or title of the post, something to help me finding your report
from the 3rd?
I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch
following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it
clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the at
the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error
message.
I have no problem, in different machines.
I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by
chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown way
create errors down the track if compilation was successful. It would seem
to me that no one has actually followed the printed instructions through
to see if it actually does compile.
I am by no means a newbie to linux. I have done technical writing and
have followed through the instructions that I wrote to make sure there
were no errors.
make[5]: Entering directory
`/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
/bin/mkdir -p /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc
rm -f /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f /opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-BLFS/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-BLFS-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/n/a/g' \
As akhiezer have written, this seems to be the problem.
I have it different in one machine:
{{{
$ xzgrep s/@@distro_name@@ OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-*
OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-14h56m30s.log.xz:-e
's/@@distro_name@@/linux-gnu/g' \
OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-14h56m30s.log.xz:-e
's/@@distro_name@@/linux-gnu/g' \
}}}
and also different in another machine:
{{{
$ xzgrep s/@@distro_name@@ OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-*
OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz:-e
's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz:-e
's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
}}}
I am not sure why you have the problem.
I use one more switch:
--with-pkgversion='7u51-2.4.5-blfs'
but this is not relevant, I think.
I believe the problem is that it is not getting your distro_name
correctly and cannot tell why, so I will give a guess suggestion.
I would suggest that you install lsb_release-1.4, because it seems it is
from there it is picking the distro from one of my machines.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/lsb-release.html
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@//g' \
I also have:
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
but this is due to the switch I use, as written above.
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed: -e expression #5, char 21: unknown option to `s'
make[5]: *** [/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java]
Error 1
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
make[4]: *** [all] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/opt/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java'
I really would appreciate it if someone could actually check and see if
they get a successful compilation without going through and having to edit
the Makefile. It is a long build for me as I only have a duel core
processor. I tried the compilation several times, each time totally
deleting the build directory to make sure that there were no left over
files.
It would seem that if the developer is not even interested in
acknowledging the error that we are on our own with it.
The developer is interested, but it is the first time he is hearing
about this problem.
Regards,
Christopher
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:42:47 -0300 From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s' Em 14-02-2014 06:14, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu: Hello, This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th. I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb and no responce there either. I cannot find your message in my archives nor at: https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/maillist.html What do you mean by developers website? Please, can you give me the address, or title of the post, something to help me finding your report from the 3rd? Fernando, maybe: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.distro-packaging.devel/26154 . . It would seem that if the developer is not even interested in acknowledging the error that we are on our own with it. The developer is interested, but it is the first time he is hearing about this problem. Ref. ibid. rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Em 14-02-2014 09:01, akhiezer escreveu:
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:42:47 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
Em 14-02-2014 06:14, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu:
Hello,
This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation
e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting
the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th.
I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb
and no responce there either.
I cannot find your message in my archives nor at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/maillist.html
What do you mean by developers website? Please, can you give me the
address, or title of the post, something to help me finding your report
from the 3rd?
Fernando, maybe:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.distro-packaging.devel/26154
.
.
It would seem that if the developer is not even interested in
acknowledging the error that we are on our own with it.
The developer is interested, but it is the first time he is hearing
about this problem.
Ref. ibid.
Thanks, akh. Just adding what seems the original link:
http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1665
I have seen that Armin also replied.
I am trying to understand this better, and have found that configure and
configure.ac have mentions to lsb_release. I am trying to understand if
it is a required, recommended or optional dependency. However, in one
machine I do not have it installed and it gives me linux-gnu and builds
fine, so, I am intending to add as optional.
What do you all think about this? I cannot understand why Christopher's
is getting n/a.
In the following, I am writing some observations and guesses.
In configure, for 2.4.4, which is a build dir still in place in yet
another machine, I see:
{{{
if test -n $ac_tool_prefix; then
# Extract the first word of ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release, so it can
be a program name with args.
set dummy ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release; ac_word=$2
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for $ac_word 5
$as_echo_n checking for $ac_word... 6; }
if ${ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE+:} false; then :
$as_echo_n (cached) 6
else
case $LSB_RELEASE in
[\\/]* | ?:[\\/]*)
ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE=$LSB_RELEASE # Let the user override the test
with a path.
;;
*)
as_save_IFS=$IFS; IFS=$PATH_SEPARATOR
}}}
Also, I noticed that he is building at /opt, so probably as root. I have:
{{{
$ xzgrep -C6 distro_name
/home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
}}}
I remember having sometime ago problems with PATH, for some packages, if
I build as root, and for those, I have a line in the script:
source /etc/profile
and the PATH is well defined, because he needs:
export CLASSPATH=.:/usr/share/java
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin
or similar, if the binary is another one, i.e., the binary has to be in
the path, and, in my case, it is provided by:
/etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh
which is defined in OJDK/Icedtea BLFS page.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:34:53 +
From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
To: BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:13:47 -0300
From: Fernando de Oliveira fam...@yahoo.com.br
To: akhiezer lf...@cruziero.com,
BLFS Support List blfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown
option to `s'
.
.
Thanks, akh. Just adding what seems the original link:
http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1665
I have seen that Armin also replied.
I am trying to understand this better, and have found that configure and
configure.ac have mentions to lsb_release. I am trying to understand if
it is a required, recommended or optional dependency. However, in one
machine I do not have it installed and it gives me linux-gnu and builds
fine, so, I am intending to add as optional.
What do you all think about this? I cannot understand why Christopher's
is getting n/a.
In the following, I am writing some observations and guesses.
In configure, for 2.4.4, which is a build dir still in place in yet
another machine, I see:
{{{
if test -n $ac_tool_prefix; then
# Extract the first word of ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release, so it can
be a program name with args.
set dummy ${ac_tool_prefix}lsb_release; ac_word=$2
{ $as_echo $as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for $ac_word 5
$as_echo_n checking for $ac_word... 6; }
if ${ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE+:} false; then :
$as_echo_n (cached) 6
else
case $LSB_RELEASE in
[\\/]* | ?:[\\/]*)
ac_cv_path_LSB_RELEASE=$LSB_RELEASE # Let the user override the test
with a path.
;;
*)
as_save_IFS=$IFS; IFS=$PATH_SEPARATOR
}}}
Also, I noticed that he is building at /opt, so probably as root. I have:
{{{
$ xzgrep -C6 distro_name
/home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2.4.5-2014.01.29-18h12m38s.log.xz
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java
rm -f
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
/bin/sed -e 's/@@launcher_name@@/java/g' \
-e 's/@@java_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_version@@/1.7.0_51-blfs-b31/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_derivative_name@@/IcedTea 2.4.5/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_name@@/Linux From Scratch/g' \
-e 's/@@distro_package_version@@/'7u51-2.4.5-blfs'/g' \
-e 's/@@java_runtime_name@@/OpenJDK Runtime Environment/g' \
-e 's/@@jdk_revid@@//g' \
-e 's/@@hotspot_revid@@//g' \
../../../src/share/classes/sun/misc/Version.java.template
/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/generated.build/sun/misc/Version.java.temp
make[5]: Leaving directory
`/home/fernando/tmp/paco-build-2014.01.29-18h12m38s/icedtea-2.4.5/openjdk-boot/jdk/make/java/version'
}}}
I remember having sometime ago problems with PATH, for some packages, if
I build as root, and for those, I have a line in the script:
source /etc/profile
and the PATH is well defined, because he needs:
export CLASSPATH=.:/usr/share/java
export PATH=$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin
or similar, if the binary is another one, i.e., the binary has to be in
the path, and, in my case, it is provided by:
/etc/profile.d/openjdk.sh
which is defined in OJDK/Icedtea BLFS page.
There was a recent case - maybe also a second case with same cause - where
the user was
doing things using 'sudo' instead of root, and it broke the PATH stuff ('cos
sudo cfg
essentially reset the PATH c). 'Bout a few weeks or so ago - sorry not more
detail.
Resolution was to do as root: iirc user hadn't got root stuff setup properly
- tho' that
was in lfs.
- sorry, that last part should be:
--
The problem was (in the LFS cases of a few weeks ago) that the user
hadn't setup - or hadn't su'd into - the user 'lfs', and so was having
to issue commands via sudo; and it was that sudo's config file that was
resetting PATH c; and so command-paths weren't being found.
The resolution was to do stuff as user lfs per book.
--
So maybe something similar here? ((Also, it wouldn't really make sense
to _have_ to be doing stuff as root in the present java/iced case,
as it looks like a config stage.))
Apols for the noise.
rgds,
akh
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
m...@pc-networking-services.com wrote: Hello, This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th. Generally posts by non-subscribers are deleted without reading. I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb and no responce there either. I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the at the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error message. I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown way create errors down the track if compilation was successful. You can change the / to most punctuation marks, but you have to be careful with some characters that are interpreted by the shell. To do that enclose in single quotes. Good characters are pipe (|), at (@), semi-colon ;, or colon (:). You change because you have a slash in the pattern or replacement and don't want to make an ugly, hard to read sequence with backslashes escaping a lot of characters. Others have responded to the rest of your message. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Iced Tea 2.4.1 and iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'
m...@pc-networking-services.com wrote: Hello, This is my second attempt to post this here. I beat the confirmation e-mail by posting to the list and receieve the bounce that it was waiting the list moderators approval and that was on the 5th. Generally posts by non-subscribers are deleted without reading. I have also posted this error on the devleopers website on the 3rd of Feb and no responce there either. I really do not know how you can say that compiling java from scratch following EXACTLY the instructions given works on a BLFS build as it clearly does NOT. Though this is the output from a later version, the at the time book version 2.4.1 gives the same unknow option to s sed error message. I do not know enough about the substitution strings in sed to know if by chaning the / to another character if it would actually in an unknown way create errors down the track if compilation was successful. You can change the / to most punctuation marks, but you have to be careful with some characters that are interpreted by the shell. To do that enclose in single quotes. Good characters are pipe (|), at (@), semi-colon ;, or colon (:). You change because you have a slash in the pattern or replacement and don't want to make an ugly, hard to read sequence with backslashes escaping a lot of characters. Others have responded to the rest of your message. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Hello, Thank you all for your respnses. I neede to clarify a few things: First off, yes I was compiling this as ROOT and yes I know that many say this is a very bad idea blah blah blah. My path when compiling this was set as per stock standard blfs/lfs book. Even though I am a seasoned linux/unix user this is the first time I have decided to do things from scratch. I do know that it was the fifth expression that sed was apparently choking on. Before I posted this message I had gone through the compilation stage at least 4 times deleting all working directories before trying again. I even rebooted the machine to make sure that no garbage was in the path's etc. I made sure that the path was set correctly. Now with regards to what Bruce has stated. I WAS able to get it to compile by replacing that offending / with a % sign. I still do not know if by replacing it with a % sign that the actual java installation is as bug free as it could be. I tried other characters and in my case it did not like them. I can not remember exactly which others I tried as it was a number. I had to edit that offending Make file to do the changes, which if that is indeed needed to fix the build on an LFS/BLFS either a patch needs to be included or perhaps an entry in the user notes or even on the JAVA installation page needs to be made. My apologies for the confusion as to stating the developers website. I always class the developers website for source code as the one that is the official site, ie in this case iced tea in the url. I understand that the lfs/blfs community also has developers for the books and the patches. I guess I really do need a little confirmation that by replacing the / with the % sign that I have not broken anything that has yet to be discovered. If someone is willing to rebuild as per the blfs book, ie coming from a fresh build of lfs to blfs and installing java as per the instructions and editing that particular Make file and adding the % sign that it is actually installing properly and not giving a false impression I would greatly appreciate it. Regards, Christopher. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
