Em 17-02-2014 12:25, Gregory H. Nietsky escreveu: > > On 17/02/2014 16:21, akhiezer wrote: >>> 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. >> >> >> 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. >
>From me, there is one problem. I have already replied some of these points, so: But it is in LFS, first, configured, and in BLFS, installed. LFS is with Bruce/Matt. Here, I am trying to make it work. LXDE does not work without (I discovered from a ticket from William I., believed him, but had "diffculty" believing that). OJDK, in one of my systems, works fine, if ldb_release is not installed. Problem is if it is installed but not configured, so, no need to return NA, it was a misconfiguration in the user machine, who did not configure it in LFS. There, the configuration is optional. That is the reason I wanted to have it configured in BLFS, if a test that I can introduce in the page gives n/a. I did similar thing exactly in OJDK, where the cacerts sometimes refused to be installed. If someone solves the problem in LXDE, Bruce/Matt agree to remove from the book, I would not mind. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
