Em 17-02-2014 11:21, akhiezer escreveu: >> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:17 -0300 >> From: Fernando de Oliveira <fam...@yahoo.com.br> >> To: BLFS Development List <blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org> >> 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, m...@pc-networking-services.com 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.
Sorry, akh, I do not agree with this. After reading below, I believe you are thinking that lsb_release is on LFS, but no, installation as a package is in BLFS. But the configuration is in LFS. This is the problem. Took a while this morning for me to get the two parts together, expected the configuration in BLFS (as it was originally), and recalled finally that it was in LFS. That was the reason I told him to install lsb_release. > > 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. > It was a user mistake, unfortunately, due to the two parts being in different books: LFS not properly configured. > > Therefore I'd suggest for now at least that: > ---- > * on openjdk/icedtea page, include a patch that fixes the problematic sed. If I agree with this, other package in BLFS should have a patch, too. And the new programs that would be discovered to fail. > > 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. That was my first thought. Problem is that the link in svn should be to LFS-svn, in rc1 to LFS-rc1, in 7.5, to LFS-7.5. Too complicated, more than the maintainance you were thinking about, when you seemed to think it was in LFS. That made me think of bringing back configuration to BLFS, too. IIRC, first time lsb_release appeared, the configuration was in BLFS, not LFS. > > 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. It is already in optional. I am intending to promote to recommended. > > * 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). This part is with Bruce and Matt. > > Perhaps collect the lsb stuff together in its own page in lfs or early > blfs, if it's deemed 'important' enough now. > ---- > It is exactly what I was proposing. So, at the end *we are agreeing*, what is good. But I know that most devs want to keep LFS at a minimum. > > >> I will include a test, to see how things are working, then, if not >> proper result, use the configure instructions (reproduced above). >> >> Any objections, here in dev? >> >> I will wait feedback from Christopher. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
