Re: OpenOffice 1.9 - beta late than never
--with-system-db won't work unless you have a 4.2.x series installed. I didn't have a problem with system-odbc, and I think system-python may work, although I had removed it because I thought I there was a problem with it, but it was just the packaging types I had tried previously to native that I think was messing it up. It was something with uno.py not being found (which is in the OO source tree) during packaging. -- Kevin Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: editor's guide questions
Archaic wrote these words on 06/08/05 23:29 CST: Replying again as I was too stupid to understand questions 1a and 1b the first time around. > 1a) What are we rounding to on single file sizes (like size of tarballs > and patches)? I use one decimal digit on files larger than 1 MB. This is probably mentioned in the edguide. Rounded to the K for files smaller than 1 MB. Which gives. 1.4 MB 35.7 MB 246 KB > 1b) How should we determine a single file's size? The lfs edguide gives > an example of ls -l and assumes the output will be in bytes, but > aliases and/or env vars could screw with that. Also, the lfs edguide > says to divide the number by 1024, ls -lk will do that for us if we > are indeed rounding to kB, otherwise ls -l --block-size=1 divided by > wherever we are rounding to will work. Answered previously. And the questions after this, I managed to read with some sort of decent comprehension (I hope). -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 00:01:00 up 67 days, 23:34, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.07, 0.06 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: editor's guide questions
Archaic wrote these words on 06/08/05 23:29 CST:
> These questions are for both books. (And yes, I know some answers will
> differ between books, but it would be nice to have a concise answer to
> them sitting in one place on each of the respective ml's. Perhaps the
> answers will make their way to the edguides, too. :)
I believe most of the questions you ask are answered in the BLFS
Editor's Guide, but I'll give them a shot from memory, or kind of
what I do anyway. These answers are for BLFS only.
> 1a) What are we rounding to on single file sizes (like size of tarballs
> and patches)?
Patches typically aren't identified with a size. The Editor's
Guide says to use ls -lh on package tarballs. I have been known
to use output from ls -l also, though I probably shouldn't be,
if the size using ls -l is what the maintainer says it is.
> 1b) How should we determine a single file's size? The lfs edguide gives
> an example of ls -l and assumes the output will be in bytes, but
> aliases and/or env vars could screw with that. Also, the lfs edguide
> says to divide the number by 1024, ls -lk will do that for us if we
> are indeed rounding to kB, otherwise ls -l --block-size=1 divided by
> wherever we are rounding to will work.
I'm not sure I see any difference in 1a and 1b.
> 2a) What are we rounding to on installed size?
Ed Guide says 3 significant digits, unless the file is less than
10 MB. I have been erroneously using only 1 or 2 on occasion, as
I really didn't know the rule, and I saw no significance in saying
it is 17.2 MB instead of just 17. So that makes the rule as such:
9.2 MB
17.3 MB
129 MB
> 2b) How are we getting installed size? Bruce, I noticed you do
> df -k $LFS | grep $LFS | sed -e "s/ \{2,\}/ /g" | cut -d' ' -f3, but
> df -k /x |grep /x | awk ' { print $3 }' is less expensive. Either
> way, df -k seems to be the most consistant and easiest to maintain.
I use du -scxk before and after the build.
> 3a) Where are we rounding SBU's to?
One decimal digit.
> 3b) Does the *official* SBU account for tarball extraction all the way
> to removing the sources (with exception for the occasion where the
> sources aren't removed). If so, does LFS's expect page account for
> the removal of the tcl source dir since that is where it happens?
My understanding is it is from configure to 'make install'. Extracting
tarballs doesn't count, nor do we add any of the extraneous installation
or configuration tasks (which usually are negligible).
> 3c) Does the *official* SBU account for testsuites? Or should those be
> timed and listed separately in the explanatory text that mentions
> the testsuite? What about if the book doesn't "recommend" running a
> testsuite (which I think is generally insane, BTW)?
I don't count the test suites in the SBU factor. I do however
usually parenthesize another SBU number for the test suite if it
is over 0.5 SBU
Hope this helps.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
23:40:00 up 67 days, 23:13, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.07, 0.01
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: OpenOffice 1.9 - beta late than never
Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 6/8/05, Kevin M. Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Alright, I've gotten this stuff finally installed. >> >>Here's my configure flags: >>./configure --with-x --prefix=/opt/OpenOffice-2.0-m107 --enable-libart >>--enable-libsn --enable-epm --disable-fontooo --with-system-mozilla >>--without-fonts --with-system-stdlibs --with-system-freetype >>--with-system-zlib --with-system-jpeg --with-system-expat >>--with-system-libxml --with-system-curl --with-system-nas >>--with-system-sndfile --with-build-version=BLFS-20050607 --with-java >>--with-jdk-home=/opt/jdk/jdk --with-system-odbc-headers >>--with-package-format=native >> Yes correct. Thanks. A couple of trivial changes: prefix is not necessary and --with-java/path are not necessary if JAVA_HOME is set correctly. Not positive about the other --with-system-*, but I believe they are required. I'll get to it. Finally, "Mozilla" is required...the build is currently broken without. You can do the build intree fine. Thunderbird libs/headers will not cut it! Mabye Firefox and OpenLDAP will work if you specify OpenLDAP for ldap.h. I'm trying to figure out what change was that caused it because thunderbird worked fine with m92 and a couple of changes to configure. I also want to eliminate the libmawt symlink with the proper link flag, but I've got to find where it was needed now. My last full build till next snapshot is going now. > > > Yay! No more patches to use the system installed versions of various packages! > Actually, libxml2 only doesn't if we want to create a symlink...I did an intree patch to avoid the symlink. :-) I guess it's a matter of personal taste, but I didn't like adding symlinks for already installed packages. I don't like the way I did the patch either...a mad ForInDo grepNsed done in haste as opposed to changing the include path...will fix it later as it'll work as is. Anyway, latest patchset and my current instructions will be availible at /~dj/OOo-2.0-pre/ in just a few minutes. I choose not to use --with-system-db, --with-system-odbc-headers, and --with-system-python because of past versioning issues (fortunately not specific to the mamoth sized build of OOo). -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: editor's guide questions
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:29:33PM -0600, Archaic wrote:
>
> 2b) How are we getting installed size? Bruce, I noticed you do
> df -k $LFS | grep $LFS | sed -e "s/ \{2,\}/ /g" | cut -d' ' -f3, but
> df -k /x |grep /x | awk ' { print $3 }' is less expensive. Either
^^ ^^
/x was just a quick example that I CnP'd. I forgot to change it to $LFS.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
editor's guide questions
These questions are for both books. (And yes, I know some answers will
differ between books, but it would be nice to have a concise answer to
them sitting in one place on each of the respective ml's. Perhaps the
answers will make their way to the edguides, too. :)
1a) What are we rounding to on single file sizes (like size of tarballs
and patches)?
1b) How should we determine a single file's size? The lfs edguide gives
an example of ls -l and assumes the output will be in bytes, but
aliases and/or env vars could screw with that. Also, the lfs edguide
says to divide the number by 1024, ls -lk will do that for us if we
are indeed rounding to kB, otherwise ls -l --block-size=1 divided by
wherever we are rounding to will work.
2a) What are we rounding to on installed size?
2b) How are we getting installed size? Bruce, I noticed you do
df -k $LFS | grep $LFS | sed -e "s/ \{2,\}/ /g" | cut -d' ' -f3, but
df -k /x |grep /x | awk ' { print $3 }' is less expensive. Either
way, df -k seems to be the most consistant and easiest to maintain.
3a) Where are we rounding SBU's to?
3b) Does the *official* SBU account for tarball extraction all the way
to removing the sources (with exception for the occasion where the
sources aren't removed). If so, does LFS's expect page account for
the removal of the tcl source dir since that is where it happens?
3c) Does the *official* SBU account for testsuites? Or should those be
timed and listed separately in the explanatory text that mentions
the testsuite? What about if the book doesn't "recommend" running a
testsuite (which I think is generally insane, BTW)?
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: OpenOffice 1.9 - beta late than never
On 6/8/05, Kevin M. Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alright, I've gotten this stuff finally installed. > > Here's my configure flags: > ./configure --with-x --prefix=/opt/OpenOffice-2.0-m107 --enable-libart > --enable-libsn --enable-epm --disable-fontooo --with-system-mozilla > --without-fonts --with-system-stdlibs --with-system-freetype > --with-system-zlib --with-system-jpeg --with-system-expat > --with-system-libxml --with-system-curl --with-system-nas > --with-system-sndfile --with-build-version=BLFS-20050607 --with-java > --with-jdk-home=/opt/jdk/jdk --with-system-odbc-headers > --with-package-format=native > Yay! No more patches to use the system installed versions of various packages! -- Tushar Teredesai http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ http://www.geocities.com/tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: NOTIC TO WHOEVER KEEPS SENDING PAYPAL LETTERS
Declan Moriarty wrote: may I suggest you add the ruleset 70_sare_spoof.cf to trusted rulesets on your spamassassin installation, as that will catch the forged ebay and forged paypal spam causing so much annoyance these days. Vipul's Razor also catches about 50% of them. It should also be possible to blacklist paypal and ebay adresses (*.paypal.com, *.ebay.*, *.ebay.*.*). I use Mozilla as my spam catcher so I am not in a position to test this out. Randy, what do you think? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: NOTIC TO WHOEVER KEEPS SENDING PAYPAL LETTERS
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words > Steven C. wrote: > > > Asking here for them to add something to the filter or whatever is > > also just a pipe dream LFS or at most BLFS dont take any suggestions > > on how to improve anything that they have created they actually take > > offence. :P > > > > I wanted to inquire about that last comment. Maybe I misunderstood, > but it sounded like you were complaining about BLFS changes not being > accepted. I browsed through the list to try and get some background > information, but you've never posted to blfs-dev, at least not since > 10/2004. Hopefully I just misunderstood, however if my understanding > was correct and there are issues that need to be addressed, please > please post your comments and concerns to blfs-dev and we'll see if we > can remedy them. :-) > > Thanks in advance. > With the above as _context_only_, may I suggest you add the ruleset 70_sare_spoof.cf to trusted rulesets on your spamassassin installation, as that will catch the forged ebay and forged paypal spam causing so much annoyance these days. Vipul's Razor also catches about 50% of them. It should also be possible to blacklist paypal and ebay adresses (*.paypal.com, *.ebay.*, *.ebay.*.*). BTW, I am not subscribed to blfs-dev -- With best Regards, Declan Moriarty. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
