Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] [BLFS Trac] #13355: mozjs-68.6.1
On 4/4/20 8:33 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 07:41:45PM +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:54:57PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: On 4/4/20 12:15 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-book wrote: [ Cc: -dev added ] I left it open because I hope there is some better way of keepign the version, tarball size and md5sum in-sync. I sort of assumed that using e.g. md5sum from one package in another would break things (don't have time to check that at the moment). Well the md5sum and package size won't change. We kinda to the same thing with bind and bind-utilities. They are two different builds of the same tarball. In a similar situation we have qt5 and QtWebEngine. Although 'webengine' is available as a separate tarball, we almost always build both at each new release. The problem with js is if some package, e.g. seamonkey or thunderbird, does not keep up with firefox. We also have the issue of polkit still at js60. I checked into that and polkit does not build with js68. However it does seem that there is only one polkit file that uses js. Thanks for the pointer to bind and bind-utils : I'll change JS68 and packages. And now I'll note tht it isn't an ideal solution - copying firefox-size into js68 worked, but only because it was (re) defined in js68. If I comment that part, js68 does not validate because firefox-size is not defined (i.e. the definition is local to each xml file). What I was hoping for was some way of defining it once, so that both users can only show the same value. I suppose putting the size and md5sum in packages could do that (ditto for bind), but that would look messy. I'm also grumpy that I've now got to measure js68 when I update firefox, but at least js68 can be used generally after the next polkit release happens. OK, Grumpy. We could try to use common md5sums by creating entities in general.ent, but that would make things inconsistent. Since jsxx needs to be rebuilt anyway for timing and build size, is it really that hard to just copy the md5sum into the page? I double check the md5sums for all new packages anyway, so a mistake can be caught quickly. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] [BLFS Trac] #13355: mozjs-68.6.1
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 07:41:45PM +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:54:57PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > On 4/4/20 12:15 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-book wrote: > > > > > > > [ Cc: -dev added ] > > > > > > I left it open because I hope there is some better way of keepign > > > the version, tarball size and md5sum in-sync. I sort of assumed > > > that using e.g. md5sum from one package in another would break > > > things (don't have time to check that at the moment). > > > > Well the md5sum and package size won't change. We kinda to the same thing > > with bind and bind-utilities. They are two different builds of the same > > tarball. > > > > In a similar situation we have qt5 and QtWebEngine. Although 'webengine' is > > available as a separate tarball, we almost always build both at each new > > release. > > > > The problem with js is if some package, e.g. seamonkey or thunderbird, does > > not keep up with firefox. We also have the issue of polkit still at js60. > > I checked into that and polkit does not build with js68. However it does > > seem that there is only one polkit file that uses js. > > > > Thanks for the pointer to bind and bind-utils : I'll change JS68 and > packages. > And now I'll note tht it isn't an ideal solution - copying firefox-size into js68 worked, but only because it was (re) defined in js68. If I comment that part, js68 does not validate because firefox-size is not defined (i.e. the definition is local to each xml file). What I was hoping for was some way of defining it once, so that both users can only show the same value. I suppose putting the size and md5sum in packages could do that (ditto for bind), but that would look messy. I'm also grumpy that I've now got to measure js68 when I update firefox, but at least js68 can be used generally after the next polkit release happens. ĸen -- The beauty of reading a page of de Selby is that it leads one inescapably to the conclusion that one is not, of all nincompoops, the greatest.-- du Garbandier -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] [BLFS Trac] #13355: mozjs-68.6.1
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:54:57PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > On 4/4/20 12:15 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-book wrote: > > > > > [ Cc: -dev added ] > > > > I left it open because I hope there is some better way of keepign > > the version, tarball size and md5sum in-sync. I sort of assumed > > that using e.g. md5sum from one package in another would break > > things (don't have time to check that at the moment). > > Well the md5sum and package size won't change. We kinda to the same thing > with bind and bind-utilities. They are two different builds of the same > tarball. > > In a similar situation we have qt5 and QtWebEngine. Although 'webengine' is > available as a separate tarball, we almost always build both at each new > release. > > The problem with js is if some package, e.g. seamonkey or thunderbird, does > not keep up with firefox. We also have the issue of polkit still at js60. > I checked into that and polkit does not build with js68. However it does > seem that there is only one polkit file that uses js. > Thanks for the pointer to bind and bind-utils : I'll change JS68 and packages. ĸen -- The beauty of reading a page of de Selby is that it leads one inescapably to the conclusion that one is not, of all nincompoops, the greatest.-- du Garbandier -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Question about updating BLFS Boot Scripts
On 4/4/20 12:57 PM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote: On 4/4/20 7:15 PM, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: On 4/4/20 5:09 AM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote: Hi all As dhcpcd 9.0.0 changed the location of its pidfile(-s), the /lib/services/dhcpcd bootscript has to be updated. I did this, but I dont know how then to prepare the needed tar.xz package. Can anybody tell me how to go about this? First, make any changes needed in the scripts directory. Then change blfs-bootscripts-version in general.ent. make/commit Everything else should be automatic. Ok, done that, in commit 22950. Hope, that's ok Should be picked up in tonight's build. Also, you might want to add an entry to the ChangeLog in the bootscripts directory. That's not critical though. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Question about updating BLFS Boot Scripts
On 4/4/20 7:15 PM, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: On 4/4/20 5:09 AM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote: Hi all As dhcpcd 9.0.0 changed the location of its pidfile(-s), the /lib/services/dhcpcd bootscript has to be updated. I did this, but I dont know how then to prepare the needed tar.xz package. Can anybody tell me how to go about this? First, make any changes needed in the scripts directory. Then change blfs-bootscripts-version in general.ent. make/commit Everything else should be automatic. Ok, done that, in commit 22950. Hope, that's ok Bye Tim -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] [BLFS Trac] #13355: mozjs-68.6.1
On 4/4/20 12:15 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-book wrote: On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 05:00:27PM -, BLFS Trac wrote: #13355: mozjs-68.6.1 -+- Reporter: xry111 | Owner: bdubbs Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: normal | Milestone: 9.2 Component: BOOK | Version: SVN Severity: normal | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -+- Changes (by bdubbs): * status: assigned => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: I took this by mistake. Ken already fixed it. [ Cc: -dev added ] I left it open because I hope there is some better way of keepign the version, tarball size and md5sum in-sync. I sort of assumed that using e.g. md5sum from one package in another would break things (don't have time to check that at the moment). Well the md5sum and package size won't change. We kinda to the same thing with bind and bind-utilities. They are two different builds of the same tarball. In a similar situation we have qt5 and QtWebEngine. Although 'webengine' is available as a separate tarball, we almost always build both at each new release. The problem with js is if some package, e.g. seamonkey or thunderbird, does not keep up with firefox. We also have the issue of polkit still at js60. I checked into that and polkit does not build with js68. However it does seem that there is only one polkit file that uses js. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Question about updating BLFS Boot Scripts
On 4/4/20 5:09 AM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote: Hi all As dhcpcd 9.0.0 changed the location of its pidfile(-s), the /lib/services/dhcpcd bootscript has to be updated. I did this, but I dont know how then to prepare the needed tar.xz package. Can anybody tell me how to go about this? First, make any changes needed in the scripts directory. Then change blfs-bootscripts-version in general.ent. make/commit Everything else should be automatic. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [BLFS Trac] #13355: mozjs-68.6.1
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 05:00:27PM -, BLFS Trac wrote: > #13355: mozjs-68.6.1 > -+- > Reporter: xry111 | Owner: bdubbs > Type: enhancement | Status: closed > Priority: normal | Milestone: 9.2 > Component: BOOK | Version: SVN > Severity: normal | Resolution: fixed > Keywords: | > -+- > Changes (by bdubbs): > > * status: assigned => closed > * resolution: => fixed > > > Comment: > > I took this by mistake. Ken already fixed it. > [ Cc: -dev added ] I left it open because I hope there is some better way of keepign the version, tarball size and md5sum in-sync. I sort of assumed that using e.g. md5sum from one package in another would break things (don't have time to check that at the moment). ĸen -- The beauty of reading a page of de Selby is that it leads one inescapably to the conclusion that one is not, of all nincompoops, the greatest.-- du Garbandier -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] linux kernel 5.6 stable SVN-20200401
Hello, On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:17 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > On 4/3/20 2:01 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:43 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > > On 4/3/20 12:41 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > > On 4/3/20 11:47 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 10:18 -0500, Douglas R. Reno via blfs- > > > > > dev > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 4/3/20 9:35 AM, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to me, kernel 5.6 is now "mainline" and stable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there something wrong with 5.6 such LFS SVN-20200401 > > > > > > > is not including the 5.6 family?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My own point of interest with 5.6 is the time_namespace > > > > > > > (for containers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is 5.6.2 too new to be considered for the (B)LFS project? > > > > > > > > > > > > > With early 5.6 versions, 5.6/5.6.1, the Intel Wireless > > > > > > driver > > > > > > (IWLWIFI) > > > > > > was broken. I think we're holding to see if any other > > > > > > regressions > > > > > > show > > > > > > up under this release > > > > > > > > > > Hmm I think from the thread on lfs-dev, that the kernel > > > > > version > > > > > will be > > > > > updated when other packages need to be updated in lfs. It > > > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > prevent users to update to recent kernels, of course... Maybe > > > > > we > > > > > could > > > > > amend the note on the "All packages" page by telling to > > > > > update to > > > > > the > > > > > most recent mainline version instead of the most recent 5.5.x > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > I'll go ahead and make that change. > > > > > > But I made that the latest stable version, not mainline. > > > > > > -- Bruce > > > > > My understanding of /www.kernel.org > > mainline is 5.6 > > stable is 5.6.2 > > (5.5.15 is flagged stable too). > > May be LFS could "jump" to 5.6.X > > I don't plan on doing an update until April 15 or so. I'll update > to > 5.6.X then. In the meantime, the note in Chapter 3 should be > sufficient. > >-- Bruce > > > I was successfull to compile allmost everything (blfs) with kernel 5.6.2, no real problem, looking good at first, but ZFS (0.8.3 and not part of the official BLFS) is not compiling seems kernel 5.6 is addressing the "Year 2038 problem" plus doing 'convert everything to "struct proc_ops"'. This mean big impact on applications/utilities in direct interface with kernel layers... So, sadly, I will step back to kernel 5.5, giving time to upstream components to be adjusted to kernel 5.6 new definitions. sharing experiences -- You have seen "Linux from scratch" and looking for ISO files www.osukiss.org -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] Question about updating BLFS Boot Scripts
Hi all As dhcpcd 9.0.0 changed the location of its pidfile(-s), the /lib/services/dhcpcd bootscript has to be updated. I did this, but I dont know how then to prepare the needed tar.xz package. Can anybody tell me how to go about this? Bye Tim -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
