Re: Who uses package users?
>> That is true. The scripts would need to check for cycles and either bail >> out to admit manual treatment, or automagically call upon "special >> cases". >> Ideally, the latter, once the basic idea is admitted as feasible. This >> could be implemented as follows: > > Let me know when you get it working :-) Haha! It is admittedly one or two iterations of package users into the future, if you may permit me some gross understatement... :-) ~ Tim -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Timothy Rice wrote:
> Hey Dan,
[...]
>> After I rebuild manually, I'd be more than happy to work with you and
>> update the hint.
>
> Sounds good :-)
If ya'll really get something working, I'd sure love to see
it.
I understand why LFS is the way it is. However, I'd like to
be able to build a list of "What I Want on My Machine", and
let it go, and some time later, have a system ready for me
to build a kernel and boot.
That's the major stopper for me actually abandoning my current
in-use distro and going with LFS. I have built LFS a few times
(like perhaps five) and made a system boot, but it's just too
boring to keep cutting and pasting, and checking when it's done,
to do on any regular basis, and I haven't attempted BLFS, b/c
it's just too much manual work.
I wouldn't want LFS to become another Gentoo, since it doesn't
give one the control LFS does over what gets installed and how.
OTOH, LFS really _really_ needs some sort of package manager
and version control, and so if you want that, then you can't use
JHALFS (as is, anyway).
I'd like to see some dependency management stuff in the package
manager and revision control systems. However, that's not really
what LFS is about.
So, if you get some stuff working, or partly working, please do let
us know here, and write some hints or sth similar.
Mac
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Timothy Rice wrote:
>> The graph is not acyclic.
>
> Hi Mac,
>
> That is true. The scripts would need to check for cycles and either bail
> out to admit manual treatment, or automagically call upon "special cases".
> Ideally, the latter, once the basic idea is admitted as feasible. This
> could be implemented as follows:
Let me know when you get it working :-)
Mac
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 07/31/2010 07:49 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Actually, I think the proper venue is lfs-dev and not lfs-support. > If y'all mosey over there, it would be great. > Tim and Drew, would you mind subscribing to lfs-dev, if you're not already. I'll continue the discussion from that list. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 07/31/2010 07:49 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Actually, I think the proper venue is lfs-dev and not lfs-support. > If y'all mosey over there, it would be great. > Thank ya kindly, y'all. My next post will be from there. Bruce, do you ever tire of being right? :) Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dan McGhee wrote: > Drew, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm grateful that Bruce will allow us > to use it, but I really don't think it's the appropriate venue for > something like a blog. The discussions that you, Tim and I are having > really look more like that than developing a specific structure for > others to use. I know that some of the things on the wiki right now are > "user notes," with definite recommendations for switches and honing the > installation of a particular package. Other than the hint as it > currently exists, I don't think we have anything similar to what I just > described. Maybe we do, but this is beyond my expertise. Still, users' notes are very helpful. > > I've been watching the various posts today and was waiting until > tomorrow to write anything of my own. Domestic project. :) I think that > you, Tim and I, at least, need to have a plan, put something useable in > place and then fine tune it. If I'm not mistaken, that's the function of > trac. Okay, here's a suggestion of, at least, how I think I can contribute: I will post notes on the packages as I build them/run into trouble. This is going to take me a while given my other family (wife and two boys aged 4 and 7 months), but I can persevere. As I run into trouble on a package (like glibc) I'll post what's going on and document how I (with help from this group) solve it. > > I'll give you a good example. There's Tim's concept of making install > directories by using the script. He's used it "ad hoc," as he says, and > I've never used it. Right now I'm about 25% through my manual rebuild of > Ch. 5, and I won't be able to test the concept until I get to Ch. 6. > Soo, on the topic of automated install directories, we don't have > anything but ideas to offer yet. True. If we document our builds, though, perhaps we can create that updated list of install directories as we go. > > I don't think that trac authorization is something that we need "right > now." I also think that when we're ready, Bruce may still be amenable to > letting us use it. Agreed. I like the idea of a wiki, but I hadn't thought of barging in on the LFS wiki just yet. Maybe after we've started generating some content? > > In the meantime, let's just keep up the exchange about what we're doing. > At the risk of sounding insulting, and I sure don't mean to be, you > still, as yet, must complete a successful LFS build using the package > users system. Your notes will be invaluable. Hah! No offense taken at all! I haven't even built LFS _without_ package users, although I've successfully built the toolchain twice. I've been using Linux for five or so years now. Maybe a little more. I started with Knoppix, getting my feet wet with a live CD and then moved to Ubuntu 5.04. I moved somewhat quickly to Slackware 11 when it came out and have stayed with Slackware ever since. So I'm an LFS newbie, but pretty experienced with Linux in general. Making packages is a topic that's somewhat dear to me. I'm one of the contributors to src2pkg (http://www.src2pkg.net/) a package-making utility for Slackware. I've also been diving into making .deb and .rmp packages a bit -- mostly to help get src2pkg working with those formats. For all of that, the package users scheme seems exceptionally elegant and worth pursuing. Anyway, I'm in the process of making a second LFS disk image I may try to simply build LFS without package users first and then come back and do it with package users. Right now I've got a good toolchain backed up, so I can start over with both versions at the beginning of chapter 6. I _love_ virtual machines! Warm regards, - -Drew -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxU2ZQACgkQ7ZZ4z2wRxN28NwCfbuQV45zH5s/uDz2l8OSCkfmS YbsAnRNutHXtVCqeXVTLK6tlCuazWTVO =G5+r -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Dan McGhee wrote: > Drew, I really don't think it's the appropriate venue for > something like a blog. The discussions that you, Tim and I are having > really look more like that than developing a specific structure for > others to use. Actually, I think the proper venue is lfs-dev and not lfs-support. If y'all mosey over there, it would be great. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 07/31/2010 06:38 PM, Timothy Rice wrote: >> I'll need to know the userid and which trac instance to set up >> > permissions. >> > >> > I don't know the first thing about trac:-) > > Dan? Drew? Help? > > > Drew, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm grateful that Bruce will allow us to use it, but I really don't think it's the appropriate venue for something like a blog. The discussions that you, Tim and I are having really look more like that than developing a specific structure for others to use. I know that some of the things on the wiki right now are "user notes," with definite recommendations for switches and honing the installation of a particular package. Other than the hint as it currently exists, I don't think we have anything similar to what I just described. Maybe we do, but this is beyond my expertise. I've been watching the various posts today and was waiting until tomorrow to write anything of my own. Domestic project. :) I think that you, Tim and I, at least, need to have a plan, put something useable in place and then fine tune it. If I'm not mistaken, that's the function of trac. I'll give you a good example. There's Tim's concept of making install directories by using the script. He's used it "ad hoc," as he says, and I've never used it. Right now I'm about 25% through my manual rebuild of Ch. 5, and I won't be able to test the concept until I get to Ch. 6. Soo, on the topic of automated install directories, we don't have anything but ideas to offer yet. I don't think that trac authorization is something that we need "right now." I also think that when we're ready, Bruce may still be amenable to letting us use it. In the meantime, let's just keep up the exchange about what we're doing. At the risk of sounding insulting, and I sure don't mean to be, you still, as yet, must complete a successful LFS build using the package users system. Your notes will be invaluable. Whaddaya think? Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 1 August 2010 00:38, Timothy Rice wrote: >> I'll need to know the userid and which trac instance to set up >> permissions. >> > > I don't know the first thing about trac :-) > > Dan? Drew? Help? > > > ~ Tim There are different user IDs on the LFS and BLFS parts of the wiki. I think Bruce was just asking you to tell him, off-list what your user ID is, and if you want to do this in the LFS or BLFS wiki - but I could be wrong. ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!" -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Timothy Rice wrote: >> I'll need to know the userid and which trac instance to set up >> permissions. >> > > I don't know the first thing about trac :-) > > Dan? Drew? Help? http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ Use the register link. One major feature is a wiki that users with appropriate permissions can edit. For more info, see http://trac.edgewall.org/ BTW, for those inclined, there is also irc.linuxfromscratch.org. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
> I'll need to know the userid and which trac instance to set up > permissions. > I don't know the first thing about trac :-) Dan? Drew? Help? ~ Tim -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Timothy Rice wrote: >> You are welcome to use the lfs/blfs trac wikis. We do need to give >> users permission as anonymous updates in the past have been used for >> spam. Let me know and I'll give all interested parties update privs. > > Thanks Bruce! I anticipate a wiki will be really essential for taking > package users "to the next level" :-) I'll need to know the userid and which trac instance to set up permissions. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
> You are welcome to use the lfs/blfs trac wikis. We do need to give > users permission as anonymous updates in the past have been used for > spam. Let me know and I'll give all interested parties update privs. Thanks Bruce! I anticipate a wiki will be really essential for taking package users "to the next level" :-) ~ Tim -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Hey Dan,
> You su command
> looks "elegant" though. When in your script do you invoke it or do you
> call the script after invoking it?
Near the top of my build script, I define:
run="su $package_user -c "
Then whenever a command, say `configure_commands' needs to be run as the
package user, I just have something like the following:
{ $run configure_commands 3>&1 1>&2 2>&3 \
| tee "$package_home/configure.err" ;} \
&>"$package_home/configure.log"
test_pipe
Then if I have, say, some post-install stuff that I need to do as root,
like ldconfig, I just omit the `$run'.
> After I rebuild manually, I'd be more than happy to work with you and
> update the hint.
Sounds good :-)
> After
> a couple of packages, I'll let you know how it's working. That idea
> would save a lot of aggravation, especially when you get to BLFS--in
> particular Xorg.
Also sounds good :-)
Cheers,
Tim
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Drew Ames wrote: > Perhaps we could create a package user wiki, or at least collect our > wisdom somewhere helpful. You are welcome to use the lfs/blfs trac wikis. We do need to give users permission as anonymous updates in the past have been used for spam. Let me know and I'll give all interested parties update privs. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Tim and Dan. Thanks for the great discussion so far _and_ for the
specific hint and tips on my localedef problem. I have a few thoughts
to add below:
On 07/30/2010 08:13 PM, Timothy Rice wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>> As far as "window management" goes, I've used Windowmaker since
>> my first {,B}LFS build--all with package users I might add. And
>> I really like this manager. It's light-weight and fast.
>> ---snip---
>
> Hmm, thanks for the tip. I was thinking about going with
> Enlightenment. It's not covered in the BLFS book, but the
> screenshots I've seen of Enlightenment look very "pretty",
> comparable to Gnome.
I've used Window Maker and Enlightenment before. Both are very good. I
prefer Enlightenment, but it's going to be a while before I'm ready to
build it. I have to build LFS first.
>> I think that this is the major "frustrator" in this system. I
>> just never thought of your idea. I do when I want to start a new
>> build generate a new "installdirs.lst" for inclusion in package
>> users. It heads off a lot of failed installs. Have you tried
>> scripting it yet? I've got an idea that might work if you
>> haven't.
>
> I've done it in an ad hoc way for one or two packages, and it
> seemed to work. I included the following in a "postinstall"
> command when building dhcpcd:
>
> find /etc/sysconfig -type d -exec chgrp install {} \; && find
> /etc/sysconfig -type d -exec chmod 1775 {} \;
>
> I haven't gotten around to making it a systematic part of the
> default build script yet.
This is great! The hint is somewhat outdated, as Matthias warned, but
I really like the idea of checking for directories that should be
install directories /and/ making an updated list of them.
> At the very least this will probably mean an update in the hint
> and
>> changes to the "Build" script. The hint needs a little polishing
>> now based on a current LFS-SVN build. If someone (you..me?
>> :) ) were contemplating this, I think we should contact Matthias
>> and see if he'd mind. The last change was November, 2005, and I
>> haven't noticed him respond to anything in a number of years.
>> The hint is not listed as "orphaned."
>
> I've contemplated contacting Matthias, but didn't feel confident
> enough to do an update all by myself. My background is maths &
> stats, not CS, and my experience with LFS is currently limited to
> one successful build of LFS 6.5, plus a few packages from BLFS.
I did, in fact, drop Matthias a note this week and he said he's using
Gentoo now. I sent a follow-up e-mail, asking him some general
questions on his current thoughts about the hint, but he hasn't
responded yet.
I have not contacted him about updating the hint, however.
But if you guys are willing to continue to share your experiences, I'm
willing to document mine. I appreciate Dan's point about finding the
error myself. I'll post my progress and continue to ask questions but
I'll work to make them informed questions. :-D
Perhaps we could create a package user wiki, or at least collect our
wisdom somewhere helpful.
The other thing I'm planning on doing is keeping my build notes and
.project files up to date for each package.
I suspect this might take a little while.
>> I have modified the "Build" script so that it finds and untars
>> the package. It 's into the directory, does it's thing,
>> makes logs of all--including tests--and cleans up after itself
>> by removing the source tree. I still enter all the commands from
>> {,B}LFS with "copy and paste" to the appropriate sections of the
>> script. Oh, the script will also take up where it left off on a
>> failed configure, make, test or install.
>
> That sounds similar to what I've got going on, although I still
> manually remove the source tree rather than automatically deleting
> it. I also haven't set things up for recovering from errors, as I
> would normally rather do a complete rebuild if there are any
> problems.
Wow! I'm familiar with the build script, but I'm not quite ready to
automate the package builds just yet.
Look for a more detailed post soon. I'll probably preface my posts
with "package user."
Regards,
- -Drew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMU4mnAAoJEKtGwUrdXLc83l4H/iJ27vrFObage9YuSqmy64xK
ATlp8E57EGCvFVP5qxtU9/aq7U5hkl6GMKKTANTVVpJP63LzfYpqTnSIsq+Nabp4
d9Euu98D9h093VO56+3zuVOHOpccIm9zdyC0UQvp5WILFooz4TnJiJC7dgoHQ/8n
58gCgMV9q4PWNqGc3jIVZEyPauepsUIt4Joclu/1qyeMaYhmIea0/GgO6+W5Oag2
OCVWA1QbsrcKyoso4bplG+vaSoka7TV3UxRCHL7cRXdtf2jjbi+Pa9Q5+BZqwIt+
et3OFTAYAg3NcCPSlcVB63bwvmfH1oaphZC7OjetgMmBs/h8XhqF/zFIPXiWblY=
=/DAz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 07/30/2010 07:13 PM, Timothy Rice wrote:
> I've done it [automated making new install directories] in an ad hoc way for
> one or two packages, and it seemed to
> work. I included the following in a "postinstall" command when building
> dhcpcd:
>
> find /etc/sysconfig -type d -exec chgrp install {} \;&&
> find /etc/sysconfig -type d -exec chmod 1775 {} \;
>
> I haven't gotten around to making it a systematic part of the default
> build script yet.
>
Looks like the only difference in the logic between yours and my 'find'
commands is that I "pretended" that I was looking at a new install after
I'd built the system using package users. So, if you made install
directories of every directory and package user created then you would
need find only the new directories from a new package. (I hope you
understood that. I almost don't. :) )
This thread has got me thinking and I'm actually disappointed that I
used Jhalfs to complete my build. I'm thinking of starting over again
and doing it manually with package users. I'll put the "make install
groups" logic in my script and see if it works.
>> > I'm curious as to what files should be "writeable." What are some of
>> > them that you think should have this ability?
>>
> I seem to recall running into problems with commands like "info", where a
> package needs to add itself to a central database. In particular, anyone
> here on the BLFS list may recall about a month ago, I was having problems
> with installing MySQL because of this problem. Another command I seem to
> have problems with is ldconfig.
>
> To get around such problems, I've currently got things set up so that the
> build script is always run as the root user. Most commands in the build
> process are then prefixed with,
>
> su $package_user -c
>
> This makes sure that as many commands as possible are run as the package
> user, but admits the freedom to run commands like ldconfig as root if
> required.
>
I just haven't run into anything like this except ldconfig. I've just
gotten into the habit of running it after each package. You su command
looks "elegant" though. When in your script do you invoke it or do you
call the script after invoking it?
> I've contemplated contacting Matthias, but didn't feel confident enough to
> do an update all by myself. My background is maths& stats, not CS, and my
> experience with LFS is currently limited to one successful build of LFS
> 6.5, plus a few packages from BLFS.
>
After I rebuild manually, I'd be more than happy to work with you and
update the hint.
> It occurs to me that if I was interested in automatically recovering from
> errors, then I would probably use makefiles. An extremely simple Makefile
> might look something like this:
>
> configure.log:
> ./build configure
>
> make.log: configure.log
> ./build make
>
> install.log: make.log
> ./build install
>
> .PHONEY: clean
> clean:
> -rm -rf *.{log,err}
>
>
> Then if you've completed the configuration and compiling, and just want to
> redo the install process (for instance), make would find the "make.log"
> and jump straight to the installation step, but if you wanted to do
> everything from scratch, you could run `make clean; make'.
>
This is precisely the logic I used. I just use a series of tests to
determine where in the process the script is starting then just jump to
the right series of function calls. I hesitate to demonstrate an example
because without the variables of the script the tests don't make sense
when taken out of context.
I meant to get started on my "by hand" build today, but didn't get
around to it. I'm going to try to use the install directory idea. After
a couple of packages, I'll let you know how it's working. That idea
would save a lot of aggravation, especially when you get to BLFS--in
particular Xorg.
Thanks again, Tim.
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Hi Dan,
> As far as "window management" goes, I've used Windowmaker since my first
> {,B}LFS build--all with package users I might add. And I really like
> this manager. It's light-weight and fast. There's quite a bit of
> configuring, especially if you want to use a menu system, but once it's
> done it's great. The problem that I had with it was that it wasn't being
> developed for awhile and maybe in the "functionality" realm it left a
> lot to be desired, but it still worked. I checked the other day and
> development has started again. I haven't gone so far as to check
> releases, but I'm intending on using it in my current build.
Hmm, thanks for the tip. I was thinking about going with Enlightenment.
It's not covered in the BLFS book, but the screenshots I've seen of
Enlightenment look very "pretty", comparable to Gnome.
> I think that this is the major "frustrator" in this system. I just never
> thought of your idea. I do when I want to start a new build generate a
> new "installdirs.lst" for inclusion in package users. It heads off a lot
> of failed installs. Have you tried scripting it yet? I've got an idea
> that might work if you haven't.
I've done it in an ad hoc way for one or two packages, and it seemed to
work. I included the following in a "postinstall" command when building
dhcpcd:
find /etc/sysconfig -type d -exec chgrp install {} \; &&
find /etc/sysconfig -type d -exec chmod 1775 {} \;
I haven't gotten around to making it a systematic part of the default
build script yet.
> I'm curious as to what files should be "writeable." What are some of
> them that you think should have this ability?
I seem to recall running into problems with commands like "info", where a
package needs to add itself to a central database. In particular, anyone
here on the BLFS list may recall about a month ago, I was having problems
with installing MySQL because of this problem. Another command I seem to
have problems with is ldconfig.
To get around such problems, I've currently got things set up so that the
build script is always run as the root user. Most commands in the build
process are then prefixed with,
su $package_user -c
This makes sure that as many commands as possible are run as the package
user, but admits the freedom to run commands like ldconfig as root if
required.
> At the very least this will probably mean an update in the hint and
> changes to the "Build" script. The hint needs a little polishing now
> based on a current LFS-SVN build. If someone (you..me? :) ) were
> contemplating this, I think we should contact Matthias and see if he'd
> mind. The last change was November, 2005, and I haven't noticed him
> respond to anything in a number of years. The hint is not listed as
> "orphaned."
I've contemplated contacting Matthias, but didn't feel confident enough to
do an update all by myself. My background is maths & stats, not CS, and my
experience with LFS is currently limited to one successful build of LFS
6.5, plus a few packages from BLFS.
> I have modified the "Build" script so that it finds and untars the
> package. It 's into the directory, does it's thing, makes logs of
> all--including tests--and cleans up after itself by removing the source
> tree. I still enter all the commands from {,B}LFS with "copy and paste"
> to the appropriate sections of the script. Oh, the script will also take
> up where it left off on a failed configure, make, test or install.
That sounds similar to what I've got going on, although I still manually
remove the source tree rather than automatically deleting it. I also
haven't set things up for recovering from errors, as I would normally
rather do a complete rebuild if there are any problems.
It occurs to me that if I was interested in automatically recovering from
errors, then I would probably use makefiles. An extremely simple Makefile
might look something like this:
configure.log:
./build configure
make.log: configure.log
./build make
install.log: make.log
./build install
.PHONEY: clean
clean:
-rm -rf *.{log,err}
Then if you've completed the configuration and compiling, and just want to
redo the install process (for instance), make would find the "make.log"
and jump straight to the installation step, but if you wanted to do
everything from scratch, you could run `make clean; make'.
> Tim, thanks for the thought provoking message.
My pleasure, and thank you for engaging me in this interesting topic :-)
Cheers,
Tim
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
> The graph is not acyclic.
Hi Mac,
That is true. The scripts would need to check for cycles and either bail
out to admit manual treatment, or automagically call upon "special cases".
Ideally, the latter, once the basic idea is admitted as feasible. This
could be implemented as follows:
1. When developing a set of Package User scripts to be released in
conjunction with the latest {,B,JHA,C}LFS book, scan the dependency graph
for cycles. This can be done using Tarjan's algorithm in O(V+E) time,
where V and E are the respective vertex and edge numbers.
2. Each detected cycle can be "shrunk" to a so-called pseudonode. This can
be done recursively until the graph is directed-acyclic, i.e. a DAG.
3. Pseudonodes in the final DAG can then be associated with scripts that
resolve the circular dependencies.
It would take work the first time, but then each pseudonode script would
only need testing and a bit of reconfiguring - not a total rewrite - with
each update to the book. And once one person has it working, it will be
available for download by anyone who wishes to use this system. This would
be especially expedient if there were a package users wiki.
Cheers,
Tim
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 07/30/2010 01:52 AM, Timothy Rice wrote:
> Hi Drew,
>
>
>> How do you like using package users? Have you built anything beyond
>> LFS with package users?
>>
> I think it is just the awesomest idea, I love it. I've got a working base
> LFS system built with package users, and now I'm working on stuff from
> BLFS. My first priority was to get internet access, and I've done that, so
> the next thing on my list of wants is a window manager.
>
Tim, first let me apologize for not reading this until today. You've
really transmitted some great information and expressed some wonderful
ideas.
As far as "window management" goes, I've used Windowmaker since my first
{,B}LFS build--all with package users I might add. And I really like
this manager. It's light-weight and fast. There's quite a bit of
configuring, especially if you want to use a menu system, but once it's
done it's great. The problem that I had with it was that it wasn't being
developed for awhile and maybe in the "functionality" realm it left a
lot to be desired, but it still worked. I checked the other day and
development has started again. I haven't gone so far as to check
releases, but I'm intending on using it in my current build.
>
>
> I am also starting to suspect that the main points of frustration with
> package users can be dealt with systematically. For instance, many
> problems seem to arise when one user tries to install files into a
> directory created by another user. It seems to be a valid simplifying
> assumption that all directories created by a user can be made into
> install-directories;
I think that this is the major "frustrator" in this system. I just never
thought of your idea. I do when I want to start a new build generate a
new "installdirs.lst" for inclusion in package users. It heads off a lot
of failed installs. Have you tried scripting it yet? I've got an idea
that might work if you haven't.
1a. for all dir in `forall_direntries_from $ (whoami)`--the experiment
would be to see if this gave only newly created directories.
1b. do
1c. chown $(whoami): $dir
1d. done OR
2. find / -xdev -type d -o $(whoami) -exec chown $(whoami): {} \;
I've not ever used "forall_direntries_from" by itself so I don't really
now what the inputs are or what it yields. Aha, something else to learn.
I do know, however, that the "find" command will work--if the syntax is
right. :) The '-o' option could just as well be '-g' also--maybe use
both to really nail it down.
> only individual files should be protected from other
> users. Now, the process of ensuring all new directories are turned into
> install-directories can be automated. Furthermore, to deal with files that
> all packages should be able to write to, why not construct a centralised
> list of such files. The list can then be checked after each install to
> make sure all permissions are correct, and any corrections can be made.
> This could all be wikified, so that things that work for most people can
> be put into some online location.
>
Ooops. Meant to leave the automation thought before my example.
I'm curious as to what files should be "writeable." What are some of
them that you think should have this ability?
> Finally, I don't think that package users has really come into its own
> yet. At the moment, it can't realistically compete on a large scale with
> systems such as Portage or Sorcery, let alone deb/apt or yum/rpm.
Write now I think that the only "benefits"--which is a relative term for
all but Portage and Sorcery, and I leave those out because I know
nothing about either--is the ability to check for dependencies before
the install and to update scripts and configuration files after install.
For me, I still like to do the latter manually so that I *really know*
what my machine is doing and where to go if there's a problem. Even
using package users, I've never had a dependency problem even on
non-BLFS packages. It's covered in the documentation of the
package--usually.
> However,
> once package users is a bit more mature,[]
At the very least this will probably mean an update in the hint and
changes to the "Build" script. The hint needs a little polishing now
based on a current LFS-SVN build. If someone (you..me? :) ) were
contemplating this, I think we should contact Matthias and see if he'd
mind. The last change was November, 2005, and I haven't noticed him
respond to anything in a number of years. The hint is not listed as
"orphaned."
> I project that it will leave
> these other systems for dead. An example of what can be accomplished is to
> have scripts that parse the (B)LFS books for source locations and
> dependency information, and automatically download required files and
> install any dependencies, recursively. I know this sort of thing is
> possible because I've seen a java program that will scan the BLFS xml for
> dependencies and generate a dependency graph. It is just a matter of
> having the p
Re: Who uses package users?
Timothy Rice wrote:
[...]
> these other systems for dead. An example of what can be accomplished is to
> have scripts that parse the (B)LFS books for source locations and
> dependency information, and automatically download required files and
> install any dependencies, recursively. I know this sort of thing is
> possible because I've seen a java program that will scan the BLFS xml for
> dependencies and generate a dependency graph. It is just a matter of
> having the people with time, interest, and expertise to implement such
> ideas.
The graph is not acyclic.
Mac
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On 07/29/2010 09:33 PM, Drew Ames wrote: > Timothy Rice wrote: > >> > Hi Drew, >> > >> >>> >> I had a problem right at the end when trying to install the >>> >> locales I got this error: >>> >> >>> >> /usr/bin/bash: /usr/bin/localedef: No such file or directory >>> >> > >> > I seem to recall running into similar problems. If I recall correctly, you >> > might be able to fix the problem by making /usr/bin/localedef an install >> > directory: >> > >> > chgrp install /usr/bin/localedef&& chmod 1775 /usr/bin/localedef >> >> >> Thanks for the tip! I'm going to start over this weekend (sort of, I >> saved my /tools, so I'd like to salvage what I have before I really >> start over). I'll post my results here along with some more detailed >> information. >> >> How do you like using package users? Have you built anything beyond >> LFS with package users? >> Drew, welcome to the world of torn hair, kicked cats and alienated wives [girlfriends]. The "More Control and Package Users" scheme can be totally--I mean totally--frustrating. But once you're used to it, it's pretty good. You really know, or can find out quickly, what's happening in the deep, dark recesses of your machine. I have built six basic LFS systems with it--including a CLFS one--and three desktop equipped systems complete with all the "bells and whistles." Although I'm getting advanced in years and my memory might be failing, I think it's safe to say that once you've build a basic, bootable LFS system, you've encountered all the "speed bumps" package users with throw your way. It's just a matter of experience and learning. LFS has really changed since that hint was last updated, but if you can use the "core" of the system, you can adapt to all the changes. There is one that I must mention right off the bat. In the first paragraph of Section 6, "Pre-Chroot Phase (Chapter 5), it says to run the command cp src/su /tools/bin because Coreutils doesn't install su if you're installing as an unprivileged user. It also discusses "setuid." In the LFS book now, it tells you to install 'su' as 'su-tools.' I did that and ran into trouble with the wrapper scripts. So I created a symlink 'su' pointing at su-tools. The purpose was to satisfy the book and the hint without changing anythin in either. Now to your current situation. Unless you're having more troubles with your build than you have indicated, starting over in this case might be a little drastic. Of course, it's up to you. I recommend that you "comb" through you install log for glibc and see if you really can find the source of the error. I have a hunch, but "I ain't tellin'" If I'm right I'll let you know, but I want YOU to find it. Please re-read Sections 4, 5.2 and the glibc discussion in Section 6. The key of the latter discussion is: *find the first error.* In my experience, the most common cause of failed builds in package users is "install directories." Here's another hint: it may not be the directory you can't write to. I do like package users. I don't want anything more in package management than it provides. Plus it gives me info on everything I've installed. Need to tell the complete story here. Currently I got frustrated with the testing errors generated in glibc and used jhalfs to to my basic build. I'm moving on with package users. My install of glibc went well, I thought. I'd never, never,never had any unexpected testing failures in the toolchain before. Now that you've mentioned a problem, maybe I gave up too soon. Maybe, I should just try again and resolve it. Thanks for the insight. Please post the results of your research. Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
Hi Drew, > How do you like using package users? Have you built anything beyond > LFS with package users? I think it is just the awesomest idea, I love it. I've got a working base LFS system built with package users, and now I'm working on stuff from BLFS. My first priority was to get internet access, and I've done that, so the next thing on my list of wants is a window manager. Package users can be a bit frustrating at times because of situations like what you've run into. However, every package management system has its downsides, and I think the downsides of package users are far outweighed by its strengths. I am also starting to suspect that the main points of frustration with package users can be dealt with systematically. For instance, many problems seem to arise when one user tries to install files into a directory created by another user. It seems to be a valid simplifying assumption that all directories created by a user can be made into install-directories; only individual files should be protected from other users. Now, the process of ensuring all new directories are turned into install-directories can be automated. Furthermore, to deal with files that all packages should be able to write to, why not construct a centralised list of such files. The list can then be checked after each install to make sure all permissions are correct, and any corrections can be made. This could all be wikified, so that things that work for most people can be put into some online location. Finally, I don't think that package users has really come into its own yet. At the moment, it can't realistically compete on a large scale with systems such as Portage or Sorcery, let alone deb/apt or yum/rpm. However, once package users is a bit more mature, I project that it will leave these other systems for dead. An example of what can be accomplished is to have scripts that parse the (B)LFS books for source locations and dependency information, and automatically download required files and install any dependencies, recursively. I know this sort of thing is possible because I've seen a java program that will scan the BLFS xml for dependencies and generate a dependency graph. It is just a matter of having the people with time, interest, and expertise to implement such ideas. Cheers, Tim -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Timothy Rice wrote: > Hi Drew, > >> I had a problem right at the end when trying to install the >> locales I got this error: >> >> /usr/bin/bash: /usr/bin/localedef: No such file or directory > > I seem to recall running into similar problems. If I recall correctly, you > might be able to fix the problem by making /usr/bin/localedef an install > directory: > > chgrp install /usr/bin/localedef && chmod 1775 /usr/bin/localedef > > > Cheers, > > > Tim Hi Tim, Thanks for the tip! I'm going to start over this weekend (sort of, I saved my /tools, so I'd like to salvage what I have before I really start over). I'll post my results here along with some more detailed information. How do you like using package users? Have you built anything beyond LFS with package users? Thanks, - -Drew -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxSOgIACgkQ7ZZ4z2wRxN1THgCfSWDk9cSVhVsQu7NhNlMx+xyY 1wEAn23LPLhbFYMZyJKiU+UFO1K8B33w =7Pvo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Re: Who uses package users?
Hi Drew, > I had a problem right at the end when trying to install the > locales I got this error: > > /usr/bin/bash: /usr/bin/localedef: No such file or directory I seem to recall running into similar problems. If I recall correctly, you might be able to fix the problem by making /usr/bin/localedef an install directory: chgrp install /usr/bin/localedef && chmod 1775 /usr/bin/localedef Cheers, Tim -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Re: Who uses package users?
Jul 29, 2010 10:19:10 AM, lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: >On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Drew Ames wrote: >> Part of the reason I'm asking is that I've had an error on glibc in >> chapter 6.9 of LFS 6.6. The error may be related to package users, but >> I'm not sure yet. I'm going to redo the toolchain and the steps >> leading up to (and including) the Chroot to see if I can repeat the >> error before I post a question about it. > >Was it trying to install scsi/scsi.h when it failed? Both Glibc and >Linux-headers attempt to install their own version of scsi/scsi.h. >Since Glibc's version is generally preferred, do this as root: > >rm /usr/include/scsi/scsi.h > >Then try installing Glibc again. > >-- >William Immendorf Hi William and thanks for the response. My error was not with the scsi.h header, although it sounds like it should have been. Instead, I had a problem right at the end when trying to install the locales I got this error: /usr/bin/bash: /usr/bin/localedef: No such file or directory This error has come up before for people, but I've never seen a good resolution or [Solved] tag on the messages. What's strange is that localedef is exactly where it is supposed to be and it seems to have the correct permissions. What is doubly weird is that my build has passed all the sanity checks and tests up to that point. Given that it seems to be a permissions issue, I initially thought the problem might be with the package users, but now I'm not so sure. I'm going to try again in the next couple of days and see what happens. I'll post more details then. In the meantime, I'd love to read about and share any package user tips like the scsi.h tip you provided. :-D Regards, -Drew to be -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Who uses package users?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Drew Ames wrote: > Part of the reason I'm asking is that I've had an error on glibc in > chapter 6.9 of LFS 6.6. The error may be related to package users, but > I'm not sure yet. I'm going to redo the toolchain and the steps > leading up to (and including) the Chroot to see if I can repeat the > error before I post a question about it. Was it trying to install scsi/scsi.h when it failed? Both Glibc and Linux-headers attempt to install their own version of scsi/scsi.h. Since Glibc's version is generally preferred, do this as root: rm /usr/include/scsi/scsi.h Then try installing Glibc again. -- William Immendorf The ultimate in free computing. Messages in plain text, please, no HTML. GPG key ID: 1697BE98 If it's not signed, it's not from me. -- "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Who uses package users?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I'm part-way through my first LFS build and things are going pretty well. I'm using the packages users package management scheme with the more control helpers and I like it. I wondering, though, how many others are using it. For those who are using it, what are your experiences with it? I've been crusing through the support list archives and reading about some errors with packages users. Sometimes they get resolved and sometimes not. I'd love to hear more from people who are using it and maybe even glean/sharespecific tips. Part of the reason I'm asking is that I've had an error on glibc in chapter 6.9 of LFS 6.6. The error may be related to package users, but I'm not sure yet. I'm going to redo the toolchain and the steps leading up to (and including) the Chroot to see if I can repeat the error before I post a question about it. Regards, - -Drew -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxRChQACgkQ7ZZ4z2wRxN1fswCgjUcIysS+mC0I4htAGcaQ8Lhw QrIAn0z0D9zXx0ekeYAPP3+kcdriCu4E =F+jw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
