Re: [blfs-dev] Texlive extension to extrapaths.sh
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 07:24:27PM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote: > Is there a reason to use extrapaths.sh instead of its own texlive.sh? > > --DJ > I assume the addition to extrapaths.sh has been there since (at least) the book moved to texlive (from TeTeX), and perhaps before. The current xml dates from r14700 in Octover 2014 when I added texmf to allow building without installing the binary, but looking at that in trac it appears that I copied that part from the existing tl-installer.xml. A quick look the BLFS museum, which is somewhat patchy, finds that in 6.2.0 we were using TeTeX apparently without extrapaths.sh, and in the later snapshot from 20121101 we were using texlive-20120701 with extrapaths.sh. Personally, I adjust paths on my own desktop systems in ~/.bashrc so I have no skin in the game re changing this. ĸen -- Adopted by dwarfs, brought up by dwarfs. To dwarfs I'm a dwarf, sir. I can do the rite of k'zakra, I know the secrets of h'ragna, I can ha'lk my g'rakha correctly ... I am a dwarf Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson (in The Fifth Elephant) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] Texlive extension to extrapaths.sh
Is there a reason to use extrapaths.sh instead of its own texlive.sh? --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] What's left for the 9.0 release?
On 8/31/2019 12:25 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: On 31/08/2019 17:25, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: On 2019-08-30 21:44 +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: On 30/08/2019 17:44, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: On 2019-08-30 10:24 -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: On 2019-08-30 10:22, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: On 2019-08-30 09:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: All packages have now been tagged and all tickets closed for the 9.0 release. What other things are remaining that we need to address before the Sunday release? -- Bruce It seems #12448 and #12459 contain various security fixes. Should we backport them to 9.0? -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University #12456 (Ruby) has a fix for two vulnerabilities - one from 2012 and one from 2015. The problem with backporting updates is that I believe that everything that links to them has to be retested. That being said though, I'd give a +1 to backporting them. I'll try a full jhalfs build to verify 9.0 tomorrow. I hope I can use jhalfs correctly and my 16-core workstation will work fine. But I can't guarantee any success. If you need anything, please tell me. I think a full blfs can be built by editing at most 30 scripts, most notably: I failed. Either I misused jhalfs or it has a bug. I got some "Error 2" from make and was able to "fix" some of them. But at last I can't continue anymore. At which stage did it fail? make in the jhalfs dir or make in packages? I'm sorry about the doc. I do not work much on it. Roger Koehler gave the necessary bits. I do not know what to add without knowing where it failed. Pierre I have the same issues (I think just not breaking it up into parts). The sgml stuff all fails when adding catalogs, these must be edited prior to running, killing off the destdir catalogs, otherwise you will need to edit /etc/sgml/catalog.cat before proceeding. Another thing is that binary texlive probably needs to be installed to avoid editing files that depend on it because we do not have a concept of dependencies for command blocks in the book. I've taken to install texlive manually. That said, blfs-tool has come a long long way. Looking good. In addition to the list you posted above, I have the following: GTK2 and GTK3: the commands to update the iconcache and db should be removed from the DESTDIR install QT5: set QT5PREFIX and required configuration changes if you want to install into /usr Postfix: this was mentioned, but to be a bit more clear, make sure you have your link and C args in there for rebuilding the makefile Even with this number of issues, I have to congratulate you on the work you've done. A very large portion of the book can be built using it. Yes, there are some issues, some of these could be addressed in the book source while staying on db4.5, but the tools have come a long, long way. --DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] What's left for the 9.0 release?
On 31/08/2019 17:25, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > On 2019-08-30 21:44 +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: >> On 30/08/2019 17:44, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: >>> On 2019-08-30 10:24 -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: On 2019-08-30 10:22, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > On 2019-08-30 09:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: >> All packages have now been tagged and all tickets closed for the 9.0 >> release. What other things are remaining that we need to address >> before >> the Sunday release? >> >>-- Bruce > > It seems #12448 and #12459 contain various security fixes. Should we > backport > them to 9.0? > -- > Xi Ruoyao > School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University #12456 (Ruby) has a fix for two vulnerabilities - one from 2012 and one from 2015. The problem with backporting updates is that I believe that everything that links to them has to be retested. That being said though, I'd give a +1 to backporting them. >>> >>> I'll try a full jhalfs build to verify 9.0 tomorrow. I hope I can use >>> jhalfs >>> correctly and my 16-core workstation will work fine. But I can't guarantee >>> any >>> success. >>> >> >> If you need anything, please tell me. I think a full blfs can be built by >> editing at most 30 scripts, most notably: > > I failed. Either I misused jhalfs or it has a bug. I got some "Error 2" from > make and was able to "fix" some of them. But at last I can't continue > anymore. > At which stage did it fail? make in the jhalfs dir or make in packages? I'm sorry about the doc. I do not work much on it. Roger Koehler gave the necessary bits. I do not know what to add without knowing where it failed. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] What's left for the 9.0 release?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 9:33 AM Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev < blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote: > On 2019-08-30 21:44 +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > > On 30/08/2019 17:44, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > > > On 2019-08-30 10:24 -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: > > > > On 2019-08-30 10:22, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > On 2019-08-30 09:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > > All packages have now been tagged and all tickets closed for the > 9.0 > > > > > > release. What other things are remaining that we need to > address > > > > > > before > > > > > > the Sunday release? > > > > > > > > > > > >-- Bruce > > > > > > > > > > It seems #12448 and #12459 contain various security fixes. Should > we > > > > > backport > > > > > them to 9.0? > > > > > -- > > > > > Xi Ruoyao > > > > > School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University > > > > > > > > #12456 (Ruby) has a fix for two vulnerabilities - one from 2012 and > one > > > > from 2015. The problem with backporting updates is that I believe > that > > > > everything that links to them has to be retested. That being said > > > > though, I'd give a +1 to backporting them. > > > > > > I'll try a full jhalfs build to verify 9.0 tomorrow. I hope I can use > > > jhalfs > > > correctly and my 16-core workstation will work fine. But I can't > guarantee > > > any > > > success. > > > > > > > If you need anything, please tell me. I think a full blfs can be built by > > editing at most 30 scripts, most notably: > > I failed. Either I misused jhalfs or it has a bug. I got some "Error 2" > from > make and was able to "fix" some of them. But at last I can't continue > anymore. > > I'll read its documentation again... > The main things to remember before starting a jhalfs build are: 1. All necessary tools are installed. 2. You are either connected to the internet or you have all the necessary packages in your archive and you have a local copy of the book xml files. 3. You have mounted the partition you intend to install on. 4. The user you are logged in as has write permission on the mounted install partition 5. If you are using package management, make sure you have created or copied the two necessary scripts. If I remember those things, I usually don't have any errors. > -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] What's left for the 9.0 release?
On 2019-08-30 21:44 +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > On 30/08/2019 17:44, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > > On 2019-08-30 10:24 -0500, Douglas R. Reno wrote: > > > On 2019-08-30 10:22, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > On 2019-08-30 09:20 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > All packages have now been tagged and all tickets closed for the 9.0 > > > > > release. What other things are remaining that we need to address > > > > > before > > > > > the Sunday release? > > > > > > > > > >-- Bruce > > > > > > > > It seems #12448 and #12459 contain various security fixes. Should we > > > > backport > > > > them to 9.0? > > > > -- > > > > Xi Ruoyao > > > > School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University > > > > > > #12456 (Ruby) has a fix for two vulnerabilities - one from 2012 and one > > > from 2015. The problem with backporting updates is that I believe that > > > everything that links to them has to be retested. That being said > > > though, I'd give a +1 to backporting them. > > > > I'll try a full jhalfs build to verify 9.0 tomorrow. I hope I can use > > jhalfs > > correctly and my 16-core workstation will work fine. But I can't guarantee > > any > > success. > > > > If you need anything, please tell me. I think a full blfs can be built by > editing at most 30 scripts, most notably: I failed. Either I misused jhalfs or it has a bug. I got some "Error 2" from make and was able to "fix" some of them. But at last I can't continue anymore. I'll read its documentation again... -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
