Questions about Fontconfig-2.4.2

Hello ,

My name is Chris.  I came across LFS about a year and a half ago, and I
decided to give it a try.  
I quickly gave up since at that time I was working 60 hours a week and
coming home to compile
became tedious very fast.  I have been busy with college and didn't have
the time to try again, but 
the thought of making my own Linux system was always tugging at my mind.
 Which all well, since
I was a newcomer to the linux scene, and now I classify myself as an
intermediate novice with about 
a years experience of linux under his belt.  

I know the basics of compiling software, but I do not understand how the
BLFS-dev team 
comes up with the commands on some of the packages.  Example, for the
Fontconfig-2.4.2 package,
the BLFS Book [1] states. 

		/configure --prefix=/usr \
		    --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var \
		    --disable-docs --without-add-fonts \
		    --with-docdir=/usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2 &&
		make

I understand the above section, but what throws me for a loop is.

		make install &&
		install -v -m644 doc/*.3 /usr/share/man/man3 &&

Re: Questions about Fontconfig-2.4.2

Chris wrote:
> I know the basics of compiling software, but I do not understand how the BLFS-dev team 
> comes up with the commands on some of the packages.  Example, for the Fontconfig-2.4.2 package,
> the BLFS Book [1] states. 
> 
> 		/configure --prefix=/usr \
> 		    --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var \
> 		    --disable-docs --without-add-fonts \
> 		    --with-docdir=/usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2 &&
> 		make
> 
> I understand the above section,

Actually, the installation script shipped in the Fontconfig
tarball is far from optimum. In fact, it probably could be
considered somewhat of a kludge.

The --disable-docs used above is key (I think, as I am going
on memory). This switch is used because if you do not use it,
then you must have DocBook-utils (including SGMLSpm and
JadeTeX) installed or the build will fail.

Now, because we use that switch, the docs are not installed
by default.

> but what throws me for a loop is.
> 
> 		make install &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.3 /usr/share/man/man3 &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.5 /usr/share/man/man5 &&

Re: Questions about Fontconfig-2.4.2

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 11:35:09PM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 
>   So, they are fastidious and check to see what is in
> a tarball - in this case, we have to assume that the man pages, and
> also the development documentation, don't get installed by 'make
> install'.

 Forgot to note that some of this non-install might be coming
from the --disable-docs switch.  That switch might be needed to
remove dependencies on other build programs (help2man or whatever).

 Basically, as with perl, there might be more than one way of doing
it.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: Questions about Fontconfig-2.4.2

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 02:45:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:
> 
> I understand the above section, but what throws me for a loop is.
> 
> 		make install &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.3 /usr/share/man/man3 &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.5 /usr/share/man/man5 &&
> 		install -v -m755 \
> 		        -d /usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2/fontconfig-devel &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.{html,pdf,txt} \
> 		        /usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2 &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/fontconfig-devel/* \
> 		        /usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2/fontconfig-devel
> 
 Hi Chris,

 I don't understand your problem, maybe you aren't thinking about
what the blfs editors are trying to do.  In general, once a package
is in blfs they make sure you get it _all_ (including
documentation).  So, they are fastidious and check to see what is in
a tarball - in this case, we have to assume that the man pages, and
also the development documentation, don't get installed by 'make
install'.  How do they notice that ?  Probably, by looking at the
build directory after 'make' and noticing what is available, and
then comparing it to what gets installed by 'make install'.

 So, the rest of us can follow the instructions with a high degree
of confidence, or decide that actually we might not want all the
documentation and silently drop the extra steps : our distros, and
if we break them by deviating from blfs we get to keep both pieces.

Re: Questions about Fontconfig-2.4.2

Ken Moffat wrote:
<snip />
>  Don't believe that the documentation - particularly basic build
> documentation - in *any* package is necessarily complete or up to
> date.  Hopefully, the build docs are close enough to let you compile
> without too much trouble, but anything better than that in the
> tarball is a real bonus.
> 
>  Or, have I totally misunderstood your point ?  (I can be *really*
> good at doing that, sometimes.)
> 
> ĸen

*Perhaps* what Chris is trying to understand is how you use "make 
$DESTDIR" and tools like "tree" to find out what the standard build 
commands do and how/why they get changed?

Just a thought - I know that was often something I had pondered before I 
found out!

It's what I used to work out what Asterisk does and enabled me to tailor 
my build commands so everything went where I wanted it...

Cheers

Alan

--

-- 
The way out is open!
http://www.theopensourcerer.com

xfsprogs-2.9.4-1

Hi!

First of all I hope I'm writing to the right list, apologies if this
isn't the case.

I've been building (B)LFS systems for quite some time now and I
thought it would be cool to contribute something. I noticed that there
is a new version of XFSprogs out there but the BLFS-book still uses
the old one, which isn't even availible for download anymore (see also
ticket# 2411). The last time I updated my box (LFS 6.3, BLFS 6.2.0) I
already used the new version (2.9.4-1) and it compiled fine using the
commands for version 2.9.3. Creating a new filesystem worked too, no
errors so far. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to help
keeping the book up to date.

Right now I am working my way through the BLFS editors guide and a few
questions arose:

1.) Calculating the SBUs for the new package: The time-program reports
3 different times as I'm sure you know. I think I should use the
"user" time, correct?

2.) Is the md5 sum of the package simply calculated by invoking
"md5sum xfsprogs-2.9.4-1.tar.gz"? I didn't find any md5 values at the
download location, but maybe I overlooked something.

3.) I've never worked with svn before, so the last question is about
editing the xml-sources of the book: As far as I understand it, in my
case I only would have to edit BOOK/postlfs/filesystems/xfs.xml
(change md5 sum, build size, SBU, etc.) and the BOOK/general.ent file

Re: xfsprogs-2.9.4-1

Christian Wurst wrote:

> 1.) Calculating the SBUs for the new package: The time-program reports
> 3 different times as I'm sure you know. I think I should use the
> "user" time, correct?

Yes.  You use the ratio of the time for package to the first LFS
binutils time.

I use: TIMEFORMAT='%1R Elapsed Time - ' $PACKAGENAME

> 2.) Is the md5 sum of the package simply calculated by invoking
> "md5sum xfsprogs-2.9.4-1.tar.gz"? 

Yes.

> 3.) I've never worked with svn before, so the last question is about
> editing the xml-sources of the book: As far as I understand it, in my
> case I only would have to edit BOOK/postlfs/filesystems/xfs.xml
> (change md5 sum, build size, SBU, etc.) and the BOOK/general.ent file
> (update xfsprogs-version). Then I run "svn diff >  xfsprogs.patch" and
> mail it to the list. 

Sounds about right.

> If I "svn up" the next time my changes would be
> overwritten by the current file versions of the server, right?

No, svn doesn't overwrite your files.  It will either "merge' in any
changes or update the files with a "Conflict"  with <<<< and >>>>

Re: xfsprogs-2.9.4-1

Christian Wurst wrote:

> First of all I hope I'm writing to the right list, apologies if this
> isn't the case.

It is the correct list, thanks for writing in.

> I've been building (B)LFS systems for quite some time now and I
> thought it would be cool to contribute something.

It is cool. Thanks.

> I noticed that there
> is a new version of XFSprogs out there but the BLFS-book still uses
> the old one, which isn't even availible for download anymore (see also
> ticket# 2411). The last time I updated my box (LFS 6.3, BLFS 6.2.0) I
> already used the new version (2.9.4-1) and it compiled fine using the
> commands for version 2.9.3. Creating a new filesystem worked too, no
> errors so far. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to help
> keeping the book up to date.

Great. Thanks.

> Right now I am working my way through the BLFS editors guide and a few
> questions arose:
> 
> 1.) Calculating the SBUs for the new package: The time-program reports
> 3 different times as I'm sure you know. I think I should use the
> "user" time, correct?

Re: xfsprogs-2.9.4-1

Thanks for all the explainations, seems I got the most part of it right.

On Dec 14, 2007 1:15 AM, Randy McMurchy <randy <at> linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Additionally, after looking at the current instructions, I
> can't figure out how the libhandle.a library is recreated.
> We delete it from /lib, but I don't see anything else for
> how it is recreated in /usr/lib. Perhaps I'm just overlooking
> the obvious.

I verified that: libhandle.a is installed to /usr/lib, we only delete
a symlink in /lib with the command you mention.

I've edited the book now and it renders ok on my box, so here comes
the diff. Hope everything is in order, if not, please tell me, I'll
correct it.

Regards,

Christian

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

ALFS project status

Hello,

there was no mail from Manuel Candales for two months or so. Does
anyone know what happened to him?

The problem for the LFS family of projects is that he was the only
active jhalfs developer, thus, the ALFS project either needs
additional developers, or has to be officially declared no longer
existing. Any volunteers? I am not volunteering, because I know
nothing about XSLT.

This is not the case of "everything works perfectly, thus no new
development" - in fact I had to patch jhalfs on LFS LiveCD in order to
fix a critical bug that prevents French users from running jhalfs, and
I want to have some known ALFS-related directions for possible future
CDs.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov
--

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