Pierre Labastie | 26 Mar 09:58 2014
Picon

New BLFS tools

Hi,

I do not know how many people on Earth are using the jhalfs BLFS tools 
(at least me...). If anybody else is doing so, I wanted to let them know 
that I did a major overhaul of the download code generation. I did my 
best to test everything, but there might still be some bug, so please 
report them on this list (or in the bug tracker).

Regards
Pierre

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Bryan Gonzalez | 18 Mar 15:27 2014
Picon

Mailman

Sent an SBU report to jhalfs-reports but mailman is holding it.
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Pierre Labastie | 8 Mar 17:27 2014
Picon

critical tests for clfs

While editing clfs.xsl for fixing the perl note regarding the boot method (see
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/pipermail/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org/2014-March/001932.html),
I realized that the only critical tests which are run are those inside a sect1
with id:
ch-system-gcc
ch-system-eglibc
ch-system-gmp
ch-system-mpfr
ch-system-mpc
ch-system-ppl
ch-system-isl
ch-system-cloog
ch-system-cloog-ppl
ch-system-binutils

First, the systemd branch uses ch-system-glibc, which I'll ad at the next
commit, but there are other possibilities. The multilib book has also for example:
ch-system-eglibc-32
ch-system-gmp-32
ch-system-gmp-n32
etc.

Should I include all those in the critical tests?

Regards
Pierre
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
(Continue reading)

sacarde | 1 Mar 17:50 2014
Picon

jhalfs to build Version 20140226-systemd

hi,
   is possible to build lfs system:

SVN ---> Version 20140226-systemd

with jhalfs-svn ?

thank you

sacarde <at> tiscali.it

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

William Harrington | 13 Feb 05:53 2014

CLFS xsl update proposal

Greetings,

Finally got around to looking through clfs.xsl and adding support for  
the remap=test so extraction of the commands required for the test  
suites are  properly included with the output using our current xml.   
I followed what was in LFS/lfs.xsl as  guide and changed some of the  
lines and added some lines which are particular to CLFS only. Such as  
isl, cloog, ppl (for older books).  I didn't add an entry for cloog- 
ppl, yet ( only valid for CLFS books up to version 1.2.0):

+                          not(ancestor::sect1[ <at> id='ch-system-cloog- 
ppl']) and

I changed Config.in to output different wording for the Final system  
test suites for TST_1 when not using the CLFS_BOOK and when using the  
CLFS_BOOK. It is trivial, really not needed, but if too much gets put  
in one line, it looks bad when in the menu portion when selecting the  
testsuite options.

I think I have done this properly, let me know if you see something  
that is improper.

Index: CLFS/clfs.xsl
===================================================================
--- CLFS/clfs.xsl       (revision 3782)
+++ CLFS/clfs.xsl       (working copy)
 <at>  <at>  -184,41 +184,99  <at>  <at> 
        </xsl:when>
        <!-- No interactive commands are needed if the .config file is  
the proper one -->
(Continue reading)

William Harrington | 24 Jan 16:04 2014

CLFS Systemd branch and network-scripts

Greetings,

I've added a package for network scripts regarding our systemd branch  
which will soon be our main branch.

For jhalfs to properly setup the Makefile for the network-script  
ssection I've added this change to the CLFS/master.sh

Index: CLFS/master.sh
===================================================================
--- CLFS/master.sh      (revision 3779)
+++ CLFS/master.sh      (working copy)
 <at>  <at>  -717,6 +717,7  <at>  <at> 
                              -e 's <at> 64 <at>  <at> ' \
                              -e 's <at> n32 <at>  <at> '`
      case $name in
+      network-scripts) name=clfs-network-scripts ;;
        *network*) name=network-cross-lfs ;;
      esac

I think that is the proper way to do it. The makefile generated the  
proper commands in that section as follows:

225-network-scripts:  224-resolv
          <at> $(call echo_message, Building)
          <at> export BASHBIN=$(SHELL) && $(SHELL) progress_bar.sh $ <at>  $ 
$PPID &
          <at> echo "$(nl_)`date`$(nl_)" >logs/$ <at> 
          <at> $(PRT_DU_CR) >>logs/$ <at> 
          <at> $(call touch_timestamp)
(Continue reading)

William Harrington | 21 Jan 20:27 2014

CLFS and log_new_files function

Greetings,

With the current way jHALFS creates the Makefile the following  
functions when creating the Makefile are clobbering the -64bit, -n32  
at the end of the filenames for some reason.

#----------------------------------#
LUSER_wrt_LogNewFiles() {          #
#----------------------------------#
   local name=`echo ${1} | sed 's/[0-9]-//'`
(
cat << EOF
          <at> \$(call log_new_files_LUSER,$name)
EOF
) >> $MKFILE.tmp
}

#----------------------------------#
CHROOT_wrt_LogNewFiles() {         #
#----------------------------------#
   local name=`echo ${1} | sed 's/[0-9]-//'`
(
cat << EOF
          <at> \$(call log_new_files,$name)
EOF
) >> $MKFILE.tmp
}

both eglibc and eglibc-64bit become eglibc and so I only have the log  
of the 64bit installs.
(Continue reading)

Bruce Dubbs | 20 Jan 15:47 2014
Picon

Requested changes

Pierre,

I have a couple of requests for enhancement of jhalfs.

1.  We are changing the book to mount /run as a tmpfs in Section 6.2, 
but I think jhalfs is not umounting it at the completion of the run. 
Can you check that?

2.  I'd like an option to run without any tests at all.  When doing 
repeated test runs that do not affect glibc, gcc, etc, the tests take 
time but don't add anything.  My alternative is to edit the scripts in 
lfs-commands/chapter06 to remove the test commands manually.

   -- Bruce
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Bryan Gonzalez | 12 Jan 05:33 2014
Picon

Small nuances

Not how much of a base there is for Ubuntu as a host, but some caveats
encountered running jhalfs from a vanilla Ubuntu 13.10 VM:

the xmllint error does not is not helpful:
"xmllint" must be installed on your system for jhalfs to run

The correct package that contains xmllint for Ubuntu is libxml2-utils.
We can't just install xmllint through apt-get.

This one is BLFS specific:
Error: you need docbook for installing BLFS tools

Also not helpful as installing 'docbook' does not satisfy jhalfs. We
need docbook-xml.

On a side note, regarding BLFS, I cannot get jhalfs to run when BLFS
tool support is selected (for the initial lfs build). However, if I
build a base LFS system, then go back and rerun jhalfs and tick BLFS I
can get it to work. I thought the idea was to be able to configure it
on the first go, or am I mistaken. If it's known to be broken. I'd be
happy to take a stab at fixing it. (or at least letting jhalfs
complete without complaining about BLFS missing scripts. It's supposed
to be missing scripts, the BLFS book is not downloaded until after the
base system build.)
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

(Continue reading)

Bruce Dubbs | 10 Jan 00:08 2014
Picon

Adding to "Cleaning Up'

Pierre,

   In LFS, I want to add an instruction to chapter06/revisedchroot.xml 
which is actually titled "Cleaning Up".  When I tested jhalfs, 
129-revisedchroot is not run in the Makefile, but 
lfs-commands/chapter06/129-revisedchroot is created.

The revised 'chroot' command should not be run but the new 'rm' command 
should be.  I'd like to see a role="noauto" (or equivalent) for 
<userinput> to skip the chroot command, but also run 129-revisedchroot 
in the Makefile.

Would that be hard to do?

   -- Bruce
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Bruce Dubbs | 26 Dec 17:23 2013
Picon

shadow

Pierre,

If we change the shadow package to shadow_4.1.5.1.orig.tar.gz, will that 
require a change to jhalfs?  The package still extracts to shadow-4.1.5.1.

   -- Bruce
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Gmane