Re: Xorg-7.3 and BLFS-6.3?

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:21:25AM -0500, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > 5. For the ati drivers, 6.7.196 is definitely good IMHO (haven't tried
> > .197 in a known good environment yet).  Supposedly, 6.7 is needed
> > for randr-1.2, but the latest 6.6 seemed ok to me on one machine
> > when 6.7.195 was both the latest release and broken.
> >   
> I've had so much trouble with the ati drivers that I just bought a 
> nvidia card. Whos drivers seem to be working fine, playing games through 
> wine at 1600x1200.
 I regrettably have to agree that the 6.7 series of ati drivers are
a PITA and definitely not stable everywhere.  6.7.197 caused 'startx'
to lock the box on the same machine where 6.7.195 couldn't find any
screens.  The compiler on that (clfs) build had certain issues with
its testsuite, so I suspected a miscompilation somewhere, but tonight
I've proved that 6.7.196 is fine there.  For future builds with 7.3
on radeons, I think I'll go back to 6.6 drivers.

 What this really highlights is the lack of consistent information
about which series of versions to use in xorg-7.3 : maybe the info
that randr-1.2 'needs' 6.7 was wrong, or maybe 6.6 doesn't take
advantage of new features but otherwise works ok.

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: Xorg-7.3 and BLFS-6.3?

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:21:25AM -0500, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>   
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>     
>>> 5. For the ati drivers, 6.7.196 is definitely good IMHO (haven't tried
>>> .197 in a known good environment yet).  Supposedly, 6.7 is needed
>>> for randr-1.2, but the latest 6.6 seemed ok to me on one machine
>>> when 6.7.195 was both the latest release and broken.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I've had so much trouble with the ati drivers that I just bought a 
>> nvidia card. Whos drivers seem to be working fine, playing games through 
>> wine at 1600x1200.
>>     
>  I regrettably have to agree that the 6.7 series of ati drivers are
> a PITA and definitely not stable everywhere.  6.7.197 caused 'startx'
> to lock the box on the same machine where 6.7.195 couldn't find any
> screens.  The compiler on that (clfs) build had certain issues with
> its testsuite, so I suspected a miscompilation somewhere, but tonight
> I've proved that 6.7.196 is fine there.  For future builds with 7.3
> on radeons, I think I'll go back to 6.6 drivers.
>
>  What this really highlights is the lack of consistent information
> about which series of versions to use in xorg-7.3 : maybe the info
> that randr-1.2 'needs' 6.7 was wrong, or maybe 6.6 doesn't take
> advantage of new features but otherwise works ok.
>
> ĸen
>   

Re: Xorg-7.3 and BLFS-6.3?

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 06:28:03PM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I'm definately not liking the ati drivers now either....
> 
> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims not to support visual [insert every 0x??
> here except 0x4b]
> 
> Guess y'all seeing the same errors? but 196 is working?  I'm confused. 
> Think I'll try a few different ones.
> 
 My Xorg log shows this for 0x23 to 0x32 with 196.  They're only
warnings.  I've sometimes noticed occasional messages like this (say,
one or two of the values) when I start an application from an xterm,
but I don't do that very often.

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: Xorg-7.3 and BLFS-6.3?

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 06:28:03PM -0600, DJ Lucas wrote:
>   
>> I'm definately not liking the ati drivers now either....
>>
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims not to support visual [insert every 0x??
>> here except 0x4b]
>>
>> Guess y'all seeing the same errors? but 196 is working?  I'm confused. 
>> Think I'll try a few different ones.
>>
>>     
>  My Xorg log shows this for 0x23 to 0x32 with 196.  They're only
> warnings.  I've sometimes noticed occasional messages like this (say,
> one or two of the values) when I start an application from an xterm,
> but I don't do that very often.
>
> ĸen
>   
Yeah...turns out to be an oldish mesa problem that I've never run across
or at least never noticed.  I get the same thing with 6.6.3 drivers, but
at least I can do better than 310x230 or whatever it was reporting.  I
think it was actually 640x480, but some weird 310 value is what the log
showed, xterms looked huge!  Anyway, I've dropped back to ati-6.6.3 and
upto xorg-server-1.4.0.90 + a few patches and am running happily at
1280x1024.  I can't get it into 1600, but I don't use it anyway, so I
haven't investigated yet.

-- DJ Lucas

Bind-9.4.1-P1 chmod 755 Error!!!

After make install and issued the command

chmod 755 /usr/lib/{lib{bind9,isc{,cc,cfg},lwres,dns}.so.*.?.?}

this command produced errors as below:
chmod: cannot access `/usr/lib/{libbind9.so.*.?.?}': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access `/usr/lib/{libisc.so.*.?.?}': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access `/usr/lib/{libisccc.so.*.?.?}': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access `/usr/lib/{libisccfg.so.*.?.?}': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access `/usr/lib/{liblwres.so.*.?.?}': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access `/usr/lib/{libdns.so.*.?.?}': No such file or directory

So It's should be changed to:
chmod 755 /usr/lib/lib{bind9,isc{,cc,cfg},lwres,dns}.so.*.?.?

it's work fine for me  now.
hope help.
Satit P.
--
Open WebMail Project (http://www.phayoune.org)

--

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

Re: Bind-9.4.1-P1 chmod 755 Error!!!

satit wrote these words on 01/09/08 03:23 CST:
> After make install and issued the command
> 
> chmod 755 /usr/lib/{lib{bind9,isc{,cc,cfg},lwres,dns}.so.*.?.?}
> 
> this command produced errors as below:
> ...
> So It's should be changed to:
> chmod 755 /usr/lib/lib{bind9,isc{,cc,cfg},lwres,dns}.so.*.?.?

Fixed. Thanks for the report.

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
23:21:02 up 4:32, 1 user, load average: 0.77, 0.35, 0.22
--

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

KDE4

I've started to look at KDE4 and wondered if anyone else has started to
build it.

According to http://techbase.kde.org/Getting_Started/Build/KDE4 it looks
like there will be several new packages needed:

qt4
libclucene
librdf
boost
cmake

as well as some others that I'm not sure about.

arts is no longer a part of kde, but I'm not sure yet if it is needed at
all.

It looks like HAL and dBus will be required.

The base kde download is 220M and that doesn't include the i18n packages
and several smaller packages that are in the extragear/ directory:

extragear-plasma-4.0.0.tar.bz2
kaider-4.0.0.tar.bz2
kcoloredit-4.0.0.tar.bz2
kfax-4.0.0.tar.bz2
kgraphviewer-4.0.0.tar.bz2 	
kiconedit-4.0.0.tar.bz2 	
kmldonkey-4.0.0.tar.bz2 	
kphotoalbum-4.0.0.tar.bz2 	

Re: KDE4

Am Sonntag, 13. Januar 2008 18:19:28 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> I've started to look at KDE4 and wondered if anyone else has started to
> build it.
I have started building KDE4 from SVN a month ago and the dependencies haven't 
changed that much.

> According to http://techbase.kde.org/Getting_Started/Build/KDE4 it looks
> like there will be several new packages needed:
>
> qt4
> libclucene
> librdf
> boost
> cmake
>
> as well as some others that I'm not sure about.
>
> arts is no longer a part of kde, but I'm not sure yet if it is needed at
> all.
Well, arts was removed from KDE4. The job is now done using the Phonon 
abstraction layer. At the moment, the only lib you can use for getting sound 
is xine. According to the cmake check, you should use xine-lib-1.1.9, which 
was released a few days ago.

> It looks like HAL and dBus will be required.
D-BUS is a requirement or better, the Qt4 bindings, which will be only build, 
if Qt4's configure finds D-BUS.

> The base kde download is 220M and that doesn't include the i18n packages
> and several smaller packages that are in the extragear/ directory:

Re: KDE4

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 11:19:28AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've started to look at KDE4 and wondered if anyone else has started to
> build it.
> 
> According to http://techbase.kde.org/Getting_Started/Build/KDE4 it looks
> like there will be several new packages needed:
> 
> qt4
> libclucene
> librdf
> boost
 /me groans, a little.
> cmake
 Tried that quite a long while ago, ISTR KDE4 was still 'work in
progress' at that time and I didn't get anywhere with it.  Cmake
didn't seem difficult (on x86).
> 
> as well as some others that I'm not sure about.
> 
> arts is no longer a part of kde, but I'm not sure yet if it is needed at
> all.
> 
> It looks like HAL and dBus will be required.
 /me groans a lot (at hal).

 Boost is "interesting" - it uses its own build system (bjam), but
fortunately there is a version shipped with it:
 cd tools/bin/src && ./build.sh gcc && cd ../../../

 For gcc-4.2.2, and perhaps for 4.1, that needs a patch - I got the

Re: KDE4

Am Sonntag, 13. Januar 2008 20:59:40 schrieb Ken Moffat:
>  Boost is "interesting" - it uses its own build system (bjam), but
> fortunately there is a version shipped with it:
>  cd tools/bin/src && ./build.sh gcc && cd ../../../
>
>  For gcc-4.2.2, and perhaps for 4.1, that needs a patch - I got the
> link from cblfs:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=22;filename=boost.diff;att
>=1;bug=367825
>
>  I'm not sure how much of the patch is actually needed.  I'm fairly
> sure the changes to make1.c are mandatory, and probably native.c,
> newstr.c, but the addition of -fno-strict-aliasing to the jam files
> might not be necessary.
Well, the patch is really needed. But I think, the important part is 
the -fno-strict-aliasing part. If you build bjam without the patch, you get 
an unusable binary, which quits with a segfault.

--
Christoph

--

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