Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
- Mail original - De: Matt Burgess matt...@linuxfromscratch.org À: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Envoyé: Mercredi 6 Juin 2012 08:58:30 Objet: Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book? On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 08:07 +0200, g@free.fr wrote: Except I say there is more perl scripts as I reported only the one with a .pl name. automake scripts as reported by Bryan Kadzban need perl, autoreconf is a perl script. That's fine. Nothing (well, nearly nothing) in LFS requires autoconf or automake to build, so we could actually get rid of all 3 :-) I know kbd has recently required autoconf, but it looks like it may be possible to work around that. Regards, Matt. Your book, your rules I don't care of some packages move from LFS to BLFS. My build system don't have an artificial frontier between what represent LFS chap6 and BLFS on. Both LFS chap 6 and later packages are always build in one shot. I didn't follow every LFS changes. That's my choice. I didn't remove pkg-config from my build system, because related to my requirements, I considered the prerequisites acceptable as I need anyway to build glib/Python. Probably since IPCop use the LFS way to build, we always build popt because another package require that. Stop to dream and code what you want to be a new reality and push that upstream. My two cent is that to be able to push upstream your changes that would allow you to deliver LFS from perl, you will need autoconf and automake to bootstrap the modified code. So you will need perl autoconf automake and cvs/svn/git working somewhere ;-) Gilles -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
- Mail original - De: Jeremy Huntwork jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com À: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Envoyé: Mardi 5 Juin 2012 01:54:01 Objet: Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book? On 6/4/12 7:52 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: So maybe it should just be installed in Chapter 5 and the Chapter 6 page could move to BLFS? If you removed the dependency in glibc and linux, you wouldn't need to do either. JH This make me smile a lot. There is much more dependencies in perl than just glibc and linux packages. Check a bit your log with grep -rl 'perl ' logdirectory To answer the popt question, I am build that package only for logrotate. As I needed Python and glib, that is not hard for me to build pkg-config-0.26. Gilles -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/5/12 2:05 AM, g@free.fr wrote: This make me smile a lot. There is much more dependencies in perl than just glibc and linux packages. Check a bit your log with grep -rl 'perl 'logdirectory Getting perl hits in your logs does not always equate to actual dependency. Configure scripts may check for perl even if it's not required and packages may at times install supplementary perl scripts that aren't typically used at runtime. Few packages actually require perl to be present to build and/or run. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
- Mail original - De: Jeremy Huntwork jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com À: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Envoyé: Mardi 5 Juin 2012 16:09:51 Objet: Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book? On 6/5/12 2:05 AM, g@free.fr wrote: This make me smile a lot. There is much more dependencies in perl than just glibc and linux packages. Check a bit your log with grep -rl 'perl 'logdirectory Getting perl hits in your logs does not always equate to actual dependency. Configure scripts may check for perl even if it's not required and packages may at times install supplementary perl scripts that aren't typically used at runtime. Few packages actually require perl to be present to build and/or run. JH -- I looked only at the build side with my compilation logs looking for 'perl ' and '\.pl '. Not all my compiled packages are in verbose mode, so I may miss some call and every anonymous perl script that is not using a .pl name. This was observed with the usage I made from those package, often with more --disable options than LFS/BLFS. bind-9.8.3 use a perl script fcron-3.0.6 use a perl script gcc use texi2pod.pl krb-1.9.3 has many perl one-liner call, libpcap-2.22 has one perl one-liner call linux-atm-2.5.2 call a perl script ntp-4.5.3 call a perl script openssl-1.0.1c produce the asm from a perl script and Configure is a perl script openswan-2.6.38 use a perl script syslinux-4.05 need perl to create some code wget-1.13.4 use texi2pod.pl I skipped here all perl related packages Good luck to compile without perl. Gilles -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
The discussion is about the feasibility of removing perl from *LFS* - all of the packages you listed except GCC are outside of LFS Sent from my iThingy On 6/06/2012, at 8:10, g@free.fr wrote: - Mail original - De: Jeremy Huntwork jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com À: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Envoyé: Mardi 5 Juin 2012 16:09:51 Objet: Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book? On 6/5/12 2:05 AM, g@free.fr wrote: This make me smile a lot. There is much more dependencies in perl than just glibc and linux packages. Check a bit your log with grep -rl 'perl 'logdirectory Getting perl hits in your logs does not always equate to actual dependency. Configure scripts may check for perl even if it's not required and packages may at times install supplementary perl scripts that aren't typically used at runtime. Few packages actually require perl to be present to build and/or run. JH -- I looked only at the build side with my compilation logs looking for 'perl ' and '\.pl '. Not all my compiled packages are in verbose mode, so I may miss some call and every anonymous perl script that is not using a .pl name. This was observed with the usage I made from those package, often with more --disable options than LFS/BLFS. bind-9.8.3 use a perl script fcron-3.0.6 use a perl script gcc use texi2pod.pl krb-1.9.3 has many perl one-liner call, libpcap-2.22 has one perl one-liner call linux-atm-2.5.2 call a perl script ntp-4.5.3 call a perl script openssl-1.0.1c produce the asm from a perl script and Configure is a perl script openswan-2.6.38 use a perl script syslinux-4.05 need perl to create some code wget-1.13.4 use texi2pod.pl I skipped here all perl related packages Good luck to compile without perl. Gilles -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-dev] popt in the book?
I thought popt was already removed from pkg-config in git? If so, why did we add it into the book now instead of at least applying Dan's patch to remove that dependency? JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I thought popt was already removed from pkg-config in git? If so, why did we add it into the book now instead of at least applying Dan's patch to remove that dependency? Other packages use popt. If it works (appears to be ok) and can be used by pkg-config, then we might as well do it. At least that's my conclusion. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 3:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I thought popt was already removed from pkg-config in git? If so, why did we add it into the book now instead of at least applying Dan's patch to remove that dependency? Other packages use popt. If it works (appears to be ok) and can be used by pkg-config, then we might as well do it. At least that's my conclusion. Heh, ok. I thought you were the one usually against adding anything extra into LFS. :) Personally, I don't think popt is all that useful. The standard C library provides getopt which is sufficient for most needs. No other current LFS package uses popt - how many packages in BLFS actually use popt? JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 6/4/12 3:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I thought popt was already removed from pkg-config in git? If so, why did we add it into the book now instead of at least applying Dan's patch to remove that dependency? Other packages use popt. If it works (appears to be ok) and can be used by pkg-config, then we might as well do it. At least that's my conclusion. Heh, ok. I thought you were the one usually against adding anything extra into LFS. :) Generally I am, but this seemed like a reasonable thing to do. In this case it takes 7 seconds to build. Personally, I don't think popt is all that useful. The standard C library provides getopt which is sufficient for most needs. No other current LFS package uses popt - how many packages in BLFS actually use popt? hd2u.xml:para role=requiredxref linkend=popt//para libbonobo.xml:xref linkend=popt//para libdv.xml:para role=optionalxref linkend=popt/, rsync.xml:para role=optionalxref linkend=popt/, samba3.xml:para role=optionalxref linkend=popt/, inkscape.xml: xref linkend=popt/, You too can learn grep. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: hd2u.xml:para role=requiredxref linkend=popt//para libbonobo.xml:xref linkend=popt//para libdv.xml:para role=optionalxref linkend=popt/, rsync.xml:para role=optionalxref linkend=popt/, samba3.xml:para role=optionalxref linkend=popt/, inkscape.xml:xref linkend=popt/, You too can learn grep. Har har - I don't have the sources anywhere that I can grep and I figured you'd know. *shrug* Anyway, I think popt is kind of silly and I hope that it'll eventually be removed from LFS. (perl is another one I'd love to see removed, but I'm not going to seriously recommend that one :) ) JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 06/04/2012 02:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: (perl is another one I'd love to see removed, but I'm not going to seriously recommend that one :) ) Just curiosity, what are the necessary steps? I was pretty sure that something obscure in either gcc or glibc builds required it, but I am all too aware of how well fuzzy memories have served me recently! :-) -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 5:20 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: On 06/04/2012 02:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: (perl is another one I'd love to see removed, but I'm not going to seriously recommend that one :) ) Just curiosity, what are the necessary steps? I was pretty sure that something obscure in either gcc or glibc builds required it, but I am all too aware of how well fuzzy memories have served me recently! :-) The current headers-install command in the kernel tree is a perl script, but there exists a patch to replace it with a very simple shell script (and I believe the intent is to submit it upstream). Glibc also requires perl for some part of its build system, but I can't recall where offhand exactly and I don't have any recent build logs available. But I doubt it's a very big deal to remove that dependency as well. I see perl as one of those things that's necessary to have available for any serious distro, but not necessarily something I need or want installed on every machine. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:30:29 +0100 Jeremy Huntwork jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com wrote: The current headers-install command in the kernel tree is a perl script, but there exists a patch to replace it with a very simple shell script (and I believe the intent is to submit it upstream). Glibc also requires perl for some part of its build system, but I can't recall where offhand exactly and I don't have any recent build logs available. But I doubt it's a very big deal to remove that dependency as well. I see perl as one of those things that's necessary to have available for any serious distro, but not necessarily something I need or want installed on every machine. So maybe it should just be installed in Chapter 5 and the Chapter 6 page could move to BLFS? Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 7:52 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: So maybe it should just be installed in Chapter 5 and the Chapter 6 page could move to BLFS? If you removed the dependency in glibc and linux, you wouldn't need to do either. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 7:54 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 6/4/12 7:52 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: So maybe it should just be installed in Chapter 5 and the Chapter 6 page could move to BLFS? If you removed the dependency in glibc and linux, you wouldn't need to do either. Oh, I see what you mean though, if we build the minimal perl in chapter 5 we can use that for the chapter 6 glibc and linux-headers (like we already do) and not worry about perl in chapter 6. Sorry I'm a bit slow today. Still, I'd be interested in seeing what it would take to remove perl completely from LFS. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 8:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: As stated earlier, the goal of LFS is to build a complete and usable foundation-level system. This includes all packages needed to replicate itself while providing a relatively minimal base from which to customize a more complete system based on the choices of the user. This does not mean that LFS is the smallest system possible. Several important packages are included that are not strictly required. I know what the book currently says. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or even accept it. And anyway, I said already I'm not seriously suggesting this for the main book. If I want to experiment, I'll do it elsewhere. If someone else wants to experiment and then suggest LFS do this, that's their decision. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 6/4/12 8:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: As stated earlier, the goal of LFS is to build a complete and usable foundation-level system. This includes all packages needed to replicate itself while providing a relatively minimal base from which to customize a more complete system based on the choices of the user. This does not mean that LFS is the smallest system possible. Several important packages are included that are not strictly required. I know what the book currently says. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or even accept it. And anyway, I said already I'm not seriously suggesting this for the main book. If I want to experiment, I'll do it elsewhere. If someone else wants to experiment and then suggest LFS do this, that's their decision. OK. Your distro, your rules. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
Bruce Dubbs wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 6/4/12 8:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: As stated earlier, the goal of LFS is to build a complete and usable foundation-level system. This includes all packages needed to replicate itself while providing a relatively minimal base from which to customize a more complete system based on the choices of the user. This does not mean that LFS is the smallest system possible. Several important packages are included that are not strictly required. I know what the book currently says. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or even accept it. And anyway, I said already I'm not seriously suggesting this for the main book. If I want to experiment, I'll do it elsewhere. If someone else wants to experiment and then suggest LFS do this, that's their decision. OK. Your distro, your rules. :) For the record, perl is also required for automake. Half of its installed files (or so) are perl modules, and /usr/bin/automake is a perl script. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] popt in the book?
On 6/4/12 10:51 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: OK. Your distro, your rules. :) For the record, perl is also required for automake. Half of its installed files (or so) are perl modules, and /usr/bin/automake is a perl script. That's another package I would personally remove from LFS (along with libtool and autoconf). By far, most released packages don't need automake or autoconf to be run at build time, unless you're doing actual development work. For those that do, install it when/if you need it. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
