On 17/02/2014 16:21, akhiezer wrote: >> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 >> From: Fernando de Oliveira <[email protected]> >> To: BLFS Development List <[email protected]> >> Subject: [blfs-dev] lsb_release configuration [Was: ... Iced Tea 2.4.1 and >> iced tea 2.4.5 sed unknown option to `s'] >> >> Em 17-02-2014 07:53, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: >>> Em 17-02-2014 03:47, [email protected] escreveu: >> >>>> Thanks for all the effort. As requested the output is: >>>> lsb_release -ds "7.4" (the " are displayed in the output) >>>> lsb_release -is n/a >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Christopher. >>>> >>> >>> I think I know what happened. You forgot or did not properly >>> >>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.4/chapter09/theend.html >>> (before doing the following as root, backup, if you have them, the two >>> files, just for later comparison, so you will see the problem): >>> >>> echo 7.4 > /etc/lfs-release >>> >>> In the following, replace <your name here> by what you want the codename >>> to be. In may case, it is set by jhalfs to "lfs-jhalfs". In your case, >>> you can use christopher, lfs-christopher, anything you want. >>> >>> cat > /etc/lsb-release << "EOF" >>> DISTRIB_ID="Linux From Scratch" >>> DISTRIB_RELEASE="7.4" >>> DISTRIB_CODENAME="<your name here>" >>> DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Linux From Scratch" >>> EOF >>> >>> This should solve your problems. >>> >>> You must do this, other software needs the lsb_release output. >>> >>> Thus, >>> >>> lsb_release -ds output comes from DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION >>> lsb_release -is output comes from DISTRIB_ID >>> >>> Notice, in the referred page: Linux Standards Base (LSB) >>> >> This problem appeared in the support page. Second time that lsb_release >> gives problem, if not installed or correctly configured. So, it seems >> that it is becoming increasingly more important. >> >> I am thinking of changing the page in BLFS to include the configuration >> file, duplicating, somehow, what is in LFS. >> > > - usually a bad idea; maintenance headache, quickly gets out-of-sync > (& then just plain wrong wrt relevance), thus causng new problems, etc. > > > The core of the problem is, I'd suggest, that: openjdk/icedtea code does > have a bug in that it uses lsb output, and lsb uses the string 'n/a' > as a default value, and openjdk/icedtea doesn't sanitise for that in > at least the problematic sed. (IIRC that problematic sed appeared a few > years back). Whereas, openjdk/icedtea should be able to compile/work ok > whether without the lsb stuff present or with lsb present and returning > 'n/a' for values. Thus, further, the lsb stuff should not be a assumed > to be(come) a prerequisite, unless the openjdk/icedtea upstream says > explicitly that it is. > > > Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: > ---- > * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. > > Perhaps/probably also send same or similar patch to upstream. > > * on openjdk/icedtea page, a link/ref to that lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' > material on lsb. > > Maybe even somehow formally include it in recommended/required/optional > deps: but - ref notes above - I'd say at the present stage it'd be at > most under 'optional', in the absence of any stronger statement from > upstream. Again: that problematic sed doesn't necessarily mean that > lsb is any sort of pre-requisite for openjdk/icedtea; the latter should > be able to at least compile OK without lsb present or lsb present and > returning 'n/a' defvals. > > * on lfs 'chapter09/theend.html' page, perhaps strengthen the wordings "It > may be a good idea" & "It is also a good idea", and give an example of > some software that uses lsb (albeit perhaps slightly only-cosmetically > for at least openjdk/icedtea). > > Perhaps collect the lsb stuff together in its own page in lfs or early > blfs, if it's deemed 'important' enough now. > ---- > --
my 2c with a 5c discount the lsb_release package is not supplied by linux foundation any longer its been removed and not maintained. in a email from them every "vendor" needs to supply a script that provides this function however this is too declare LSB compliance. sure icedtea should handle any output likewise having "sane" results will be a better option as there may be problems else where. a proposal will be to return NA as opposed n/a or any other value one can assume this output will be used in sed/awk/other scripts so a "friendly" result is sane. thus my argument is if you have such a script you declaring compliance and will be returning valid results that are vendor not user supplied. for LSB you MUST have RPM and a installed package lsb(-VER) this needs to install the linux foundation "special" ld script that LSB programs call alongside std ld.....so the test suite is a mission to get up and running once all this is done and the requirements for specific ABI is rather explicit and strict i have started working through this mess it is not well documented and there is no source available for "key" "vendor" supplied elements. my vote will be leaning to LSB be dammed but want to work through it a bit further. Greg -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
