Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 10:20:51PM +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:50:14PM +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:33:30AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > > On 1/5/21 9:34 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > > Just checking all packages, the following are present: > > > > > Replying with the state of play before Pierre had identified that > using -i is what can cause gtkdocize to be required (i.e. for > packages which mention gtk-doc if I understood correctly) : > > > > networking/netprogs/cifsutils.xml: autoreconf -fiv > I guess my mail to Doug got treated as spam, as will this one. > There seems to be a perfectly usable configure script in all > versions of cifs-utils that have been in the book since this > autoreconf was added - I have not tried to run autoreconf on this. > > > > > > > networking/netlibs/libnsl.xml: autoreconf -fi > > > > Not yet tested. gtkdocize not required. > > > > x/lib/clutter.xml: autoreconf -f -i > This has been commented out. > > > > x/lib/cairo.xml: autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize is needed, I can test without -i. Is ok without the -i, but even if gtk-doc is installed it defaults to no docs: checking whether to build gtk-doc documentation... no In this case, --enable-gtk-doc is needed to *build* the docs if gtk-doc has been installed, unlike e.g. libgrss where the switch controls *rebuilding* the docs. > > > > postlfs/filesystems/reiser.xml:autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize not required. > > > > postlfs/security/volume_key.xml: autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize not required. > > > > > > > postlfs/security/polkit.xml: autoreconf -fi > gtkdocize is needed for this, but up-thread Pierre said we don't > need -i. > > > > postlfs/security/tripwire.xml: autoreconf -fi > gtkdocize not required. > > > > multimedia/libdriv/libmad.xml: autoreconf -fi > I seem to have missed this one. Ah, no, it's another one that has > been commented out. > > > > general/graphlib/sassc.xml:autoreconf -fi > gtkdocize not needed. For testing with DESTDIR pass --with-libsass= > to point to where the lib was installed. > > > > general/graphlib/libraw.xml: autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize not required. > > > > general/genlib/telepathy-glib.xml: autoreconf -fiv > Needs gtkdocize, I think I have the deps to test without -i. > Fails badly, it needs -fi AND gtk-doc for autoreconf. After that, one of the tests is still using /usr/bin/python which I do not have normally available: = Telepathy-GLib 0.24.1: tests/test-suite.log = # TOTAL: 16 # PASS: 15 # SKIP: 0 # XFAIL: 0 # FAIL: 1 # XPASS: 0 # ERROR: 0 .. contents:: :depth: 2 FAIL: all-errors-documented.py == ../build-aux/test-driver: ./all-errors-documented.py: /usr/bin/python: bad interpreter: No such file or directory FAIL all-errors-documented.py (exit status: 126) Looking for /usr/bin/python finds: terpreter: No such file or directory ./tests/all-errors-documented.py.log:../build-aux/test-driver: ./all-errors-documented.py: /usr/bin/python: bad interpreter: No such file or directory ./tests/Makefile:PYTHON = /usr/bin/python3 ./tests/all-errors-documented.py:#!/usr/bin/python <<< ./tests/tools/Makefile:PYTHON = /usr/bin/python3 ./tests/lib/Makefile:PYTHON = /usr/bin/python3 ./tests/dbus/Makefile:PYTHON = /usr/bin/python3 Adding sed -i 's%/usr/bin/python%&3%' tests/all-errors-documented.py fixes that and allows the second set of tests to run. > > > general/genlib/libunique.xml: autoreconf -fi > Needs gtkdocize, I think I have the deps to test without -i. > This too needs the -i in autoreconf. > > > general/genlib/libgrss.xml:autoreconf -fiv > Needs gtkdocize, I think I have the deps to test without -i. > Without the -i, libgrss builds fine. > > > general/genlib/exempi.xml: autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize is not required. > > > > general/genlib/libpaper.xml: autoreconf -fi > gtkdocize is not required. > > > > > > > general/genutils/gtk-doc.xml: autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize is not required. > > > > pst/sgml/sgml-common.xml: autoreconf -f -i > gtkdocize is not required. > > > > xsoft/other/tigervnc.xml: autoreconf -fiv > gtkdocize is not required. > > > Now I just need to edit all of these, and comment the autoreconf in cogl (from last week). ĸen -- Lu-Tze had long considered that everything happens for a reason, except possibly football. -- The Thief Of Time -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 05:29:53PM -0600, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote: > > On 1/5/21 4:20 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:50:14PM +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:33:30AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > On 1/5/21 9:34 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via > > > > > blfs-dev wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > Just checking all packages, the following are present: > > > > > > Replying with the state of play before Pierre had identified that > > using -i is what can cause gtkdocize to be required (i.e. for > > packages which mention gtk-doc if I understood correctly) : > > > > > > networking/netprogs/cifsutils.xml: autoreconf -fiv > > I guess my mail to Doug got treated as spam, as will this one. > > There seems to be a perfectly usable configure script in all > > versions of cifs-utils that have been in the book since this > > autoreconf was added - I have not tried to run autoreconf on this. > > Unfortunately I can't find it in my spam folder over in GMail either :-( > > Yeah the autoreconf command can go from cifs-utils. There was a broken > release of (6.9?), which later had a stealth release that restored the > proper behavior. 6.9 (Broken) didn't ship with a pregenerated configure > file. > > I'll get it at my next commit, unless you get to it first :-) > > - Doug > Thanks for the explanation, keeping track of where there was a stealth update which we fixed seems quite hard. I'm not likely to commit any of this soon. ĸen -- Lu-Tze had long considered that everything happens for a reason, except possibly football. -- The Thief Of Time -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On 1/5/21 4:20 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:50:14PM +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:33:30AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: On 1/5/21 9:34 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: Just checking all packages, the following are present: Replying with the state of play before Pierre had identified that using -i is what can cause gtkdocize to be required (i.e. for packages which mention gtk-doc if I understood correctly) : networking/netprogs/cifsutils.xml: autoreconf -fiv I guess my mail to Doug got treated as spam, as will this one. There seems to be a perfectly usable configure script in all versions of cifs-utils that have been in the book since this autoreconf was added - I have not tried to run autoreconf on this. Unfortunately I can't find it in my spam folder over in GMail either :-( Yeah the autoreconf command can go from cifs-utils. There was a broken release of (6.9?), which later had a stealth release that restored the proper behavior. 6.9 (Broken) didn't ship with a pregenerated configure file. I'll get it at my next commit, unless you get to it first :-) - Doug -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:50:14PM +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:33:30AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > > On 1/5/21 9:34 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > Just checking all packages, the following are present: > > Replying with the state of play before Pierre had identified that using -i is what can cause gtkdocize to be required (i.e. for packages which mention gtk-doc if I understood correctly) : > > networking/netprogs/cifsutils.xml: autoreconf -fiv I guess my mail to Doug got treated as spam, as will this one. There seems to be a perfectly usable configure script in all versions of cifs-utils that have been in the book since this autoreconf was added - I have not tried to run autoreconf on this. > > > > networking/netlibs/libnsl.xml: autoreconf -fi > > Not yet tested. > > x/lib/clutter.xml: autoreconf -f -i This has been commented out. > > x/lib/cairo.xml: autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize is needed, I can test without -i. > > postlfs/filesystems/reiser.xml:autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize not required. > > postlfs/security/volume_key.xml: autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize not required. > > > > postlfs/security/polkit.xml: autoreconf -fi gtkdocize is needed for this, but up-thread Pierre said we don't need -i. > > postlfs/security/tripwire.xml: autoreconf -fi gtkdocize not required. > > multimedia/libdriv/libmad.xml: autoreconf -fi I seem to have missed this one. Ah, no, it's another one that has been commented out. > > general/graphlib/sassc.xml:autoreconf -fi gtkdocize not needed. For testing with DESTDIR pass --with-libsass= to point to where the lib was installed. > > general/graphlib/libraw.xml: autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize not required. > > general/genlib/telepathy-glib.xml: autoreconf -fiv Needs gtkdocize, I think I have the deps to test without -i. > > general/genlib/libunique.xml: autoreconf -fi Needs gtkdocize, I think I have the deps to test without -i. > > general/genlib/libgrss.xml:autoreconf -fiv Needs gtkdocize, I think I have the deps to test without -i. > > general/genlib/exempi.xml: autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize is not required. > > general/genlib/libpaper.xml: autoreconf -fi gtkdocize is not required. > > > > general/genutils/gtk-doc.xml: autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize is not required. > > pst/sgml/sgml-common.xml: autoreconf -f -i gtkdocize is not required. > > xsoft/other/tigervnc.xml: autoreconf -fiv gtkdocize is not required. > > > > I didn't check the individual pages, but perhaps they all should use -fv. > > We would need to do a test build at least though make to ensure the > > instructions still work. > > > > -- Bruce > > That's what I meant (for "do the current instructions need > gtkdocize" I've already completed), and for some of those (few) that > do, I have the deps and can see if dropping -i solves things. > So, it looks like I still have one to test, one non-book package to test, and a few to retest without -i. ĸen -- Lu-Tze had long considered that everything happens for a reason, except possibly football. -- The Thief Of Time -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:33:30AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > On 1/5/21 9:34 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > > > some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc (I'm > > > > getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of > > > > autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with > > > > the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has in > > > > the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to > > > > polkit. > > > > > > > > > > From reading the patch that introduced gtkdocize in autoconf [1], > > > it appears that gtkdocize is not called if the -i (--install) flags is > > > not passed. That flag is not needed for polkit. We might want to check > > > whether it is really needed for the other packages that use autoreconf. > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > > Interesting, but I'm not sure I can check that throughout - I've > > checked plain "does autoreconf work to produce a configure script" > > on several packages where I lack the dependencies to actually build > > them. > > Just checking all packages, the following are present: > > networking/netprogs/cifsutils.xml: autoreconf -fiv > > networking/netlibs/libnsl.xml: autoreconf -fi > > x/lib/clutter.xml: autoreconf -f -i > x/lib/cairo.xml: autoreconf -fiv > postlfs/filesystems/reiser.xml:autoreconf -fiv > postlfs/security/volume_key.xml: autoreconf -fiv > > postlfs/security/polkit.xml: autoreconf -fi > postlfs/security/tripwire.xml: autoreconf -fi > multimedia/libdriv/libmad.xml: autoreconf -fi > general/graphlib/sassc.xml:autoreconf -fi > general/graphlib/libraw.xml: autoreconf -fiv > general/genlib/telepathy-glib.xml: autoreconf -fiv > general/genlib/libunique.xml: autoreconf -fi > general/genlib/libgrss.xml:autoreconf -fiv > general/genlib/exempi.xml: autoreconf -fiv > general/genlib/libpaper.xml: autoreconf -fi > > general/genutils/gtk-doc.xml: autoreconf -fiv > pst/sgml/sgml-common.xml: autoreconf -f -i > xsoft/other/tigervnc.xml: autoreconf -fiv > > I didn't check the individual pages, but perhaps they all should use -fv. > We would need to do a test build at least though make to ensure the > instructions still work. > > -- Bruce That's what I meant (for "do the current instructions need gtkdocize" I've already completed), and for some of those (few) that do, I have the deps and can see if dropping -i solves things. The list of those where gtkdocize is needed but I might not have the deps for a full build is on another machine, will report back later. ĸen -- Lu-Tze had long considered that everything happens for a reason, except possibly football. -- The Thief Of Time -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On 1/5/21 9:34 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: Hi Guys, some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc (I'm getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has in the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to polkit. From reading the patch that introduced gtkdocize in autoconf [1], it appears that gtkdocize is not called if the -i (--install) flags is not passed. That flag is not needed for polkit. We might want to check whether it is really needed for the other packages that use autoreconf. Pierre Interesting, but I'm not sure I can check that throughout - I've checked plain "does autoreconf work to produce a configure script" on several packages where I lack the dependencies to actually build them. Just checking all packages, the following are present: networking/netprogs/cifsutils.xml: autoreconf -fiv networking/netlibs/libnsl.xml: autoreconf -fi x/lib/clutter.xml: autoreconf -f -i x/lib/cairo.xml: autoreconf -fiv postlfs/filesystems/reiser.xml:autoreconf -fiv postlfs/security/volume_key.xml: autoreconf -fiv postlfs/security/polkit.xml: autoreconf -fi postlfs/security/tripwire.xml: autoreconf -fi multimedia/libdriv/libmad.xml: autoreconf -fi general/graphlib/sassc.xml:autoreconf -fi general/graphlib/libraw.xml: autoreconf -fiv general/genlib/telepathy-glib.xml: autoreconf -fiv general/genlib/libunique.xml: autoreconf -fi general/genlib/libgrss.xml:autoreconf -fiv general/genlib/exempi.xml: autoreconf -fiv general/genlib/libpaper.xml: autoreconf -fi general/genutils/gtk-doc.xml: autoreconf -fiv pst/sgml/sgml-common.xml: autoreconf -f -i xsoft/other/tigervnc.xml: autoreconf -fiv I didn't check the individual pages, but perhaps they all should use -fv. We would need to do a test build at least though make to ensure the instructions still work. -- 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] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 14:33 +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc > > (I'm > > getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of > > autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with > > the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has > > in > > the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to > > polkit. > > > > From reading the patch that introduced gtkdocize in autoconf [1], > it appears that gtkdocize is not called if the -i (--install) flags > is > not passed. That flag is not needed for polkit. We might want to > check > whether it is really needed for the other packages that use > autoreconf. Forgot the ref... [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blobdiff;f=bin/autoreconf.in;h=14e12895e2a2d98729dc19f38e442626f1d72444;hp=1ca11f284a0ba02cc92e4b96ce13be2b69769691;hb=dd880a0a6de5602cdd40b770ed6b083b34aa0768;hpb=aba75f6d4a9c875a9d5d90a07c6b3678db66a4bf -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc (I'm > > getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of > > autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with > > the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has in > > the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to > > polkit. > > > > From reading the patch that introduced gtkdocize in autoconf [1], > it appears that gtkdocize is not called if the -i (--install) flags is > not passed. That flag is not needed for polkit. We might want to check > whether it is really needed for the other packages that use autoreconf. > > Pierre > Interesting, but I'm not sure I can check that throughout - I've checked plain "does autoreconf work to produce a configure script" on several packages where I lack the dependencies to actually build them. ĸen -- Lu-Tze had long considered that everything happens for a reason, except possibly football. -- The Thief Of Time -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > Hi Guys, > > some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc (I'm > getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of > autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with > the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has in > the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to > polkit. > From reading the patch that introduced gtkdocize in autoconf [1], it appears that gtkdocize is not called if the -i (--install) flags is not passed. That flag is not needed for polkit. We might want to check whether it is really needed for the other packages that use autoreconf. 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] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On 12/30/20 3:55 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
On 12/30/20 1:18 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
I think you can start gnome without a dm, by putting "exec gnome-
session" in .xinitrc. Now how to only start gnome-shell, I am not sure.
This is what I use:
$ cat .xinitrc
session=${2:-xfce}
dbus="dbus-launch --exit-with-session"
ck="ck-launch-session dbus-launch --exit-with-session"
case $session in
fluxbox ) exec startfluxbox;;
icewm ) exec icewm-session ;;
openbox ) exec openbox-session ;;
sawfish ) exec sawfish ;;
kde5|plasma ) exec $dbus /opt/kf5/bin/startplasma-x11 ;;
xfce|xfce4 ) exec $dbus startxfce4;;
lxde) exec ck-launch-session startlxde ;;
lxqt) $dbus /opt/lxqt/bin/startlxqt;;
lxqt2 ) exec /opt/lxqt/bin/startlxqt ;;
gnome ) $dbus /usr/bin/gnome-session ;;
twm ) xterm -g 80x40+0+0 &
xclock -g 100x100-0+0 &
twm
;;
# No known session, just say so
*) echo "Cannot run $1" ;;
esac
Some of the entries are obsolete. The default can be changed in line 1.
Thanks. do you think we should mention this for gnome, or is
everyone who goes to the trouble of building it assuemd to want to
use a desktop manager ?
Well, it is listed under Short Descriptions on the gnome-session, but we
could put in a paragraph there about starting from the command line. It
did take me a while to figure it out, but that was some time ago.
-- 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] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
> On 12/30/20 1:18 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
>
> > I think you can start gnome without a dm, by putting "exec gnome-
> > session" in .xinitrc. Now how to only start gnome-shell, I am not sure.
>
> This is what I use:
>
>
> $ cat .xinitrc
> session=${2:-xfce}
>
> dbus="dbus-launch --exit-with-session"
> ck="ck-launch-session dbus-launch --exit-with-session"
>
> case $session in
> fluxbox ) exec startfluxbox;;
> icewm ) exec icewm-session ;;
> openbox ) exec openbox-session ;;
> sawfish ) exec sawfish ;;
> kde5|plasma ) exec $dbus /opt/kf5/bin/startplasma-x11 ;;
> xfce|xfce4 ) exec $dbus startxfce4;;
> lxde) exec ck-launch-session startlxde ;;
> lxqt) $dbus /opt/lxqt/bin/startlxqt;;
> lxqt2 ) exec /opt/lxqt/bin/startlxqt ;;
> gnome ) $dbus /usr/bin/gnome-session ;;
>
> twm ) xterm -g 80x40+0+0 &
> xclock -g 100x100-0+0 &
> twm
> ;;
>
># No known session, just say so
> *) echo "Cannot run $1" ;;
> esac
>
>
> Some of the entries are obsolete. The default can be changed in line 1.
>
> -- Bruce
Thanks. do you think we should mention this for gnome, or is
everyone who goes to the trouble of building it assuemd to want to
use a desktop manager ?
ĸen
--
(The Balancing Monks) use small brass weights, none of them bigger
than a fist. They work. Well, obviously they work. The world has not
tipped up yet. -- The Thief Of Time
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On 12/30/20 1:18 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
I think you can start gnome without a dm, by putting "exec gnome-
session" in .xinitrc. Now how to only start gnome-shell, I am not sure.
This is what I use:
$ cat .xinitrc
session=${2:-xfce}
dbus="dbus-launch --exit-with-session"
ck="ck-launch-session dbus-launch --exit-with-session"
case $session in
fluxbox ) exec startfluxbox;;
icewm ) exec icewm-session ;;
openbox ) exec openbox-session ;;
sawfish ) exec sawfish ;;
kde5|plasma ) exec $dbus /opt/kf5/bin/startplasma-x11 ;;
xfce|xfce4 ) exec $dbus startxfce4;;
lxde) exec ck-launch-session startlxde ;;
lxqt) $dbus /opt/lxqt/bin/startlxqt;;
lxqt2 ) exec /opt/lxqt/bin/startlxqt ;;
gnome ) $dbus /usr/bin/gnome-session ;;
twm ) xterm -g 80x40+0+0 &
xclock -g 100x100-0+0 &
twm
;;
# No known session, just say so
*) echo "Cannot run $1" ;;
esac
Some of the entries are obsolete. The default can be changed in line 1.
-- 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] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 08:18:16PM +0100, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc (I'm > > getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of > > autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with > > the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has in > > the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to > > polkit. > > > > So, I tried without the patch and (thus far) all of fluxbox, icewm, > > openbox, sawfish don't need it. I'm still working through the other > > packages which use autoreconf (and autoconf, to be sure), but so far > > only polkit with the patch, and cairo, need gtkdocize. > > > > Cairo, of course, is why I've had to install gtk-doc. But when I > > come to add gtk-doc as a dependency it would be better if I > > understood why we patch polkit. Is it for users of desktop managers > > and/or gnome shell (i.e. conventional startx will always work > > without it), or is there a different reason ? > > Without a fix, "polkitunixsession" is linked to consolekit even if > elogind is present. This means that it is impossible to register an > authentication agent, or to use pkexec, for example. DEs that do not > register an authentication agent do not need it, I guess. I'm sure > conventional startx can be used to start lxde, and that without the > patch, a warning is printed (about missing consolekit), so no, startx > wouldn't always "work without it". Noe that it does not prevent the > session to start. But it lacks several functionalities (ability to > shutdown, hibernate, etc, without using the cli for example). > > Note that I think the patch could be rewritten to patch configure > instead of configure.ac. That would remove the need to run autoconf. > Hi Pierre, thanks for the details. When I suspend I use other means (xbindkeys with sudo and pm-suspend). Will come up with some wording when I've finished reviewing other packages. > > > > > And a side question - mutter apparently gets invoked by gnome shell, > > is there any way to do that without using a desktop manager ? > > I think you can start gnome without a dm, by putting "exec gnome- > session" in .xinitrc. Now how to only start gnome-shell, I am not sure. > > Pierre > That sounds the way to do it (I don't think that only starting gnome-shell would necessarily be useful, I was just using the limited info I could find in past versions of the book while wondering why mutter seemed to be the only WM where we didn't give an example of how to use it from startx.) ĸen -- (The Balancing Monks) use small brass weights, none of them bigger than a fist. They work. Well, obviously they work. The world has not tipped up yet. -- The Thief Of Time -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Why do we patch polkit for elogind ?
On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 18:21 +, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > Hi Guys, > > some of you may have noticed that I have an aversion to gtk-doc (I'm > getting over it). This was triggered by occasional uses of > autoreconf now needing gtkdocize. That first hit me in polkit with > the patch for elogind, but my memory suggested that the patch has in > the past been added or rolled forward a little after updates to > polkit. > > So, I tried without the patch and (thus far) all of fluxbox, icewm, > openbox, sawfish don't need it. I'm still working through the other > packages which use autoreconf (and autoconf, to be sure), but so far > only polkit with the patch, and cairo, need gtkdocize. > > Cairo, of course, is why I've had to install gtk-doc. But when I > come to add gtk-doc as a dependency it would be better if I > understood why we patch polkit. Is it for users of desktop managers > and/or gnome shell (i.e. conventional startx will always work > without it), or is there a different reason ? Without a fix, "polkitunixsession" is linked to consolekit even if elogind is present. This means that it is impossible to register an authentication agent, or to use pkexec, for example. DEs that do not register an authentication agent do not need it, I guess. I'm sure conventional startx can be used to start lxde, and that without the patch, a warning is printed (about missing consolekit), so no, startx wouldn't always "work without it". Noe that it does not prevent the session to start. But it lacks several functionalities (ability to shutdown, hibernate, etc, without using the cli for example). Note that I think the patch could be rewritten to patch configure instead of configure.ac. That would remove the need to run autoconf. > > And a side question - mutter apparently gets invoked by gnome shell, > is there any way to do that without using a desktop manager ? I think you can start gnome without a dm, by putting "exec gnome- session" in .xinitrc. Now how to only start gnome-shell, I am not sure. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
