Hi all,
I am re-building OOo using a source snapshot. Version 2.0.155
This is getting much further than before and has the NSS/NSPR patches
included.
I have had to patch a couple of java files which were using enum and I
have the 1.5_06 JDK so they needed to be changed and were not touched
Alan Lord wrote:
That seems to have done the trick!
Thanks Jurg.
Alan, sorry for not getting to this sooner in BLFS, life has once again
stepped in the way. :-/ Unfortunately, I don't see it any time in the
next couple of weeks unless another editor can grab it. If it wouldn't
be too
Alan, sorry for not getting to this sooner in BLFS, life has once again
stepped in the way. :-/ Unfortunately, I don't see it any time in the
next couple of weeks unless another editor can grab it. If it wouldn't
be too much trouble, when the build completes, would you mind posting a
quick
Alan Lord wrote:
Here's the error:
/home/alord/OOA680_m1/vcl/unx/source/app/nassound.cxx:41:28: error:
audio/audiolib.h: No such file or directory
/home/alord/OOA680_m1/vcl/unx/source/app/nassound.cxx:42:28: error:
audio/soundlib.h: No such file or directory
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Alan,
I'm just curious where you have the {audio,sound}lib.h files located.
In my system I have:
$ locate audiolib.h
/usr/X11R6/include/audio/audiolib.h
$ locate soundlib.h
/usr/include/alsa/asoundlib.h
/usr/include/sys/asoundlib.h
/usr/X11R6/include/audio/soundlib.h
I
Richard A Downing wrote:
Alan Lord wrote:
I know - posting to my own message but...
Just d/l the OOo linux-intel-x86 package and it's all in bloody RPMS!!!
If you convert the RPMS to tar.gz with rpm2targz then the tar.gz's will
unpack to /opt/openoffice.org2.0.
-- Bruce
nas can't be simply made against xorg 7.0 as it complains about
SharedLibX not being defined. According to the docs with xorg-cf-files
this particular define isn't mentioned at all so I'm not sure it can be
set? Also, the build fails because xorg 7.0 doesn't include *rman* which
On Mit, 2006-02-08 at 20:58 +, Alan Lord wrote:
In the Perl script set_soenv the offending line is:
ToFile( MOZ_NSPR_CFLAGS, @MOZ_NSPR_CFLAGS@, e );
Am I being thick? Should I have only applied the nspr patch?
On first glance it looks like you didn't regenerate the configure script
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:48:28 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard A Downing wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:17:24 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not opposed to adding a section on scripting packages. Chapter 2
seems to be the appropriate place for that.
This
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:17:24 -0600
Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably not much, but it is a lot different from the rest of the
book. There is also not much difference in just executing the
commands in the proposed script.
I don't know about you, but I script most of my packages.
Dan McGhee wrote:
snipped everything
Here are my notes from today. They may be useful. Or they may not be.
To control the build order in the libraries I used two files that the
'for PKG...' loop could read. If someone decides to use them in the
book, it might be too failsafe but it might
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I clearly said that it wasn't so much for the educational standpoint
that I'm against scripting, it is because that is just not that way
we've always done it, and I don't see this package as a reason to
change.
This is just my $0.02. I think blfs should provide the
Stopped researching and started playing today. Used the directions in
the draft book @~/dj/blfs-xorg/x/xorg7.html.
NOTE: I already have the packages so I didn't test any of this for
downloading and verifying. Additionally, I worked only on the
prototypes thinking that if I could install
. This system is
# detailed at
# http://linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/more_control_and_pkg_man.txt
# It was modified by Dan McGhee 20060122 for using in scripting the
# Xorg-7.0 build in BLFS.
configure_commands()
{ :
./configure --prefix=/tmp/test
}
make_commands()
{ :
make
to go about
this, as I've not messed with any of Xorg-7.0 yet, but I'd sure like
to continue to contrive ways to do the installation without a script.
--
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]
11:23
installation start to finish.
It's not so much the education thing, more is that I think by scripting
it sets a bad precedent. I don't yet have any clues how to go about
this, as I've not messed with any of Xorg-7.0 yet, but I'd sure like
to continue to contrive ways to do the installation without
scripting the whole installation. I'm not suggesting
that we, actually I mean you, the editors, provide this script as
written. If, as Bruce mentioned in another thread, the directions for
Xorg-7.0 contain a number of sections detailing how to build each subset
of packages, e.g; prototype headers
Dan McGhee wrote these words on 01/22/06 12:15 CST:
Although I will use a script, there is no need to script this. However,
for each section I think that a for-do-done loop will save a lot of
keyboards from freezing as a result of dried blood. :-)
A do loop is much different than a
It seems a bit petty to worry about setting a bad precedent...
I'm not sure I understand your point other than to call my opinion
petty.
I hate it when we are separated by a common language...
Petty \Petty\ (p[e^]tt[y^]), a. [Compar. Pettier
(p[e^]tt[i^]*[~e]r); superl. Pettiest.] [OE.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/22/06 11:36 CST:
It seems a bit petty to worry about setting a bad precedent...just
*having* a package that needs 200+ individual package installations is
setting a precedent by itself...
I'm not sure I understand your point other
that worked for
me. If you like it use it. If not, don't. And my feelings won't be
hurt if none of my ideas are accepted.
At first glance, building Xorg-7.0 looks like it's too hard. In
concept, I beleieve it's easier then openoffice. I one breaks down the
installation to pieces, it's
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 01/22/06 12:52 CST:
The wget switch (-B) used is also not well known...why not explain here
and give people a new way to use an existing tool?
What a coincidence you mention this. I'm having to put a note on the
Mozilla page to download a new makemake file, and
Dan McGhee wrote these words on 01/22/06 12:58 CST:
1. Install Xorg-6.9
As it stands right now, I believe that this is the version that
will be going in the book as the first pass on the upgrade. And,
to the best of my knowledge, this will be the last version of the
6.x series that will have
Randy McMurchy wrote:
So, I'm not real sure we need to consider this, unless we move
straight to 7.0 and never put 6.9 in the book.
My strategy right now is to have three version of X in the book until
things get sorted out a bit more:
XFree86
Xorg-6.9
Xorg-7.0
As some point in the future
@DJ Lucas
Just out of curiosity, why did you split building the data packages?
Bitmaps first, server then rest of the data packages? Did you find
something?
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the
Dan McGhee wrote:
@DJ Lucas
Just out of curiosity, why did you split building the data packages?
Bitmaps first, server then rest of the data packages? Did you find
something?
Dan
Yes...I can't look right now, but one of the apps required xbitmaps
before buildingI don't remember the
DJ Lucas wrote:
Dan McGhee wrote:
@DJ Lucas
Just out of curiosity, why did you split building the data packages?
Bitmaps first, server then rest of the data packages? Did you find
something?
Dan
Yes...I can't look right now, but one of the apps required xbitmaps
before
Randy McMurchy wrote:
With all due respect for your research and work so far, and hoping you
*continue* to keep providing input on this topic, I would just like to
mention that I don't think a script is the right way to go here. If
we're going to provide a script, it may as well do the entire
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/22/06 22:15 CST:
Randy, please explain why you think that providing our own script for
making all of Xorg-7.0.0 is worse from the educational standpoint than
relying upon the Xorg-6.9.0 Makefile system in order to build the
identical C files.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
Compare the following:
Xorg 6.9.0:
create host.def
make World
make install install.man
The second command compiles, among other things, the lnxagp.c file
present in unpacked source. Compilation of all Xorg components is
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/22/06 22:48 CST:
So we are comparing automated build of Xorg components vs automated
build of Xorg components. What's the differende, from the educational
standpoint?
Apparently, Alexander, you did not read my earlier comments, and
instead just
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
Compare the following:
Xorg 6.9.0:
create host.def
make World
make install install.man
The second command compiles, among other things, the lnxagp.c file
present in unpacked source.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm
just not sure we should be providing ways to create log files and
other such stuff that each person should figure out on there own
how they want to do it.
I see your point. I actually used the logging because it was in the old
monolithic build method. IIRC, this
Randy McMurchy wrote:
You're comparing a maintainer's installation script/method with
something that we (BLFS developers) come up with. Alexander, this
is night and day. Apples and oranges.
Thanks, you answered my question.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
through the Xorg-7.0 threads and
side-tracked myself on the BLFS Expansion thread. I think that there
is a big link between the two discussions and would like to offer my
$0.02. (These are 1964 pennies and adjusted for inflation now are
$1,000,000.02. Har! Har!). This could be long so please
with the scripts for the major sections. I think
that's what DJ has started to do.
If I remember correctly there are only five major sections, but the
possible 200 or so packages make the Xorg-7.0 modular build look
daunting. If the 6.9 build is called a monolith, then 7.0 is behemouth
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:08:48 -0600
Tushar Teredesai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/9/06, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Agreed, it should either be /usr (my preference) or /usr/X11R7
(the appropriate version).
My preference is /usr/X11R7.
Though that
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:22:22 -0600
Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:09 CST:
I'll put up a more recent set if anyone would like to
look at them that accounts for the issues that have been found
recently.
At this point, I can't help but
DJ Lucas wrote:
Oh as far as ed as a required dependency, grep through your configure
logs if you keep them separate.
Unfortunately I'm not that sophisticated. I keep the logs from each
application separate, but I log CMMI all in one file. Consequently
grepping for `ed' gets me lots of hits
Hi All,
I read the earlier thread re: xorg 7.0 and discussion seems to have
stopped around the end of December.
I have viewed this page
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/blfs-xorg7/x/xorg7.html to get an
idea of what's involved but I wanted to check if any further work has
been done
Alan Lord wrote:
Hi All,
I read the earlier thread re: xorg 7.0 and discussion seems to have
stopped around the end of December.
I have viewed this page
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/blfs-xorg7/x/xorg7.html to get an
idea of what's involved but I wanted to check if any further work
On 1/9/06, Alan Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
There also seems to be no mention of influencing the build with the
host.def file as was done previously! Is this correct? Are we now
required to apply the right configure switches to the right packages
individually? Of which there seem
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
This way:
http://svn.linuxfromscratch.org/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/packages/Xorg-modular/?root=livecd
Note: this has many differences from other recommendations on this list.
Or even build the whole CD yourself. As root:
...
No, but (as well as X11R6.9.0) it hits
Looks like X has lost all the learning value there was from the old
version. This just looks like a way to automate the build, but doesn't
really go into detail like Gnome or KDE which are also modular systems.I
like the who, what, when, why, and where approach.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Gifford wrote:
Looks like X has lost all the learning value there was from the old
version. This just looks like a way to automate the build, but doesn't
really go into detail like Gnome or KDE which are also modular systems.I
like the who, what, when, why, and where approach.
I agree.
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
I don't think the scripted LiveCD approach is being considered for the
BLFS book, Jim. I think Alex was just responding to Alan's specific
request for a scripted build.
I just saw the page in DJ's directory, that's what through me off.
Here is the link
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/09/06 10:52 CST:
I just saw the page in DJ's directory, that's what through me off.
I do not care for the instructions either. *Way* too automated. We
may as well just make a tarball of all the packages, host it and a
script that does everything. That way,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/09/06 10:52 CST:
I just saw the page in DJ's directory, that's what through me off.
I do not care for the instructions either. *Way* too automated. We
may as well just make a tarball of all the packages, host it and a
script
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 01/09/06 14:54 CST:
That sounds like a plan. I can't see any functional difference between
6.8.2 and 7.0.
I believe Bruce was referring to Xorg-6.9.0 as the non-modular version.
There may not be much difference in this and 6.8.2, but the 6.9.0 code
is touted
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I agree with everything Andy says, except installing into /usr. The
default should be the expected method and location. Installing into
/usr should be the reader's option to change from the default. If he
wants to stray from the default, great, Your Distro, Your Rules.
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 01/09/06 15:57 CST:
What is the BLFS position on this?
All of the BLFS instructions install programs in /usr with optional
instructions to install into /opt for some specific packages.
Whatever, Andy. You can argue all you want, and for all I care you
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/9/06, Andrew Benton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is X installed into /usr/X11R6? It only makes sense to install
packages into their own folder to make it easy to remove them, but X is
such a fundamental application, doesn't it make more sense to install it
into
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
My preference is /usr/X11R7.
I havn't had a chance to lookk at it much yet, but I got a message from
the xorg-modular list about building.
I havn't looked at that link, I also use /usr/X11R7, the only problem I
found with it is compatibility with programs that are
Joe Ciccone wrote these words on 01/09/06 17:35 CST:
I havn't looked at that link, I also use /usr/X11R7, the only problem I
found with it is compatibility with programs that are hardwired to
/usr/X11R6, Mesa is one of them.
ln -s X11R7 /usr/X11R6
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularDevelopersGuide
Have others here looked at that?
Many times, it's not much than general guidelines for building the
modular tree (either from CVS, the released tarballs and jhbuild).
Just as a side note, you may want to look at this link
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:49 CST:
In other words, the new system provides average LFSers and others like
them with a lot of flexibility.
Perhaps there is more flexibility. However, there won't be time to
exercise this flexibility because you're going to have to spend all
On 1/9/06, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
Agreed, it should either be /usr (my preference) or /usr/X11R7 (the
appropriate version).
My preference is /usr/X11R7.
Though that will break a lot of packages that hard code the paths to X
(I think most of them
On 1/9/06, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I can't help but think that 6.9.0 is the only way to
go. Unless there is some good way to keep the building of Xorg in the
spirit of BLFS (not completely automated), I can't see any value
going to the 7.0, if 6.9.0 affords the
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Perhaps there is more flexibility. However, there won't be time to
exercise this flexibility because you're going to have to spend all
your free time just seeing which one of the 200-some-odd packages
have been updated. By the time you get through checking all of them,
it
Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:09 CST:
I'll put up a more recent set if anyone would like to
look at them that accounts for the issues that have been found recently.
At this point, I can't help but think that 6.9.0 is the only way to
go. Unless there is
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
To all those building X11R7:
Take a look at
http://cvs.freedesktop.org/*checkout*/xorg/util/modular/build-from-tarballs.sh
...but be sceptical enough. The script is buggy for the following reasons:
3) It doesn't correct broken autofoo in
DJ Lucas wrote:
Alexander, are those hard-coded or variable substitutions? I find
references in libXt's configure script to /usr/etc, but not /usr/log in
xserver.
Sorry, I meant /usr/var/log. They are variable substitutions, and can be
properly dealt with by passing --sysconfdir and
Randy McMurchy wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 01/09/06 18:09 CST:
I'll put up a more recent set if anyone would like to
look at them that accounts for the issues that have been found recently.
At this point, I can't help but think that 6.9.0 is the only way to
go. Unless there is some
63 matches
Mail list logo
