[blfs-support] Iced Tea again!!!!!

me at pc-networking-services.com me at pc-networking-services.com
Sun Mar 23 03:30:01 PDT 2014


> Em 23-03-2014 06:15, me at pc-networking-services.com escreveu:
>>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 01:01:18PM +1300, me at pc-networking-services.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Well this is ridiculous.  I have reached the point after a few days of
>>>> installing the systemd 7.5 version of LFS, and going through the
>>>> configuration of quite a number of other packages following BLFS 7.5
>>>> stable to the point of having a working graphical interface, so decide
>>>> now
>>>> is a good time to install java again.
>>>>
>>>> I set everything up as per the instructions, which I did when I first
>>>> set
>>>> it up following the previous version of LFS.
>>>>
>>>> This time round though I can NOT even get the blasted thing to
>>>> compile.
>>>> I
>>>> have even reverted back to the iced tea 2.4.1 and get EXACTLY the same
>>>> message.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that in between changing the versions I have deleted the
>>>> files
>>>> for the CURRENT 7.5 stable version.  The only thing that I did not do
>>>> was
>>>> to delete /usr/share/java before extracting the earlier binary and
>>>> supporting files.
>
> Well, I hope that you have really followed the instructions.
>
>>>
>>>  I'm not particularly familiar with java at the moment, but I've
>>> built icedtea-2.4.2 twice - once in October/November, in a general
>>> test, once on 7.5 because I overlooked that the old version was
>>> invoked from the script :-( and I then built 2.4.5 on 7.5.
>>>
>>>  I've now looked at my last 2.4.2 log, and I see the sort of
>>> information you have posted above, just over 4000 lines into the
>>> build.  In your case, I am worried by the warnings about unzip and
>>> zip, and baffled by the error that 'make' seems not to have been
>>> found.  And after one Error, I think all bets for subsequent
>>> messages are off, in the same way that in a compilation failure we
>>> have to look at the first error.  I assume you haven't run out of
>>> disk space, or filled up /tmp ?  Rebuilding gcc seems an extreme
>>> suggestion (unless someone intends using gcc's java to bootstrap
>>> icedtea), so I'm not exactly surprised that it didn't help.
>>> But just to be clear : you can still build both C and C++ packages ?
>>>
>>>  For me, the pain of scripting java was in working out what to add
>>> to the builder's (for me, that is the big guy, whose username begins
>>>  with 'r') PATH - and, of course, remembering to set up my own PATH
>>> when I actually had to try to use java.  Is it possible that you
>>> screwed up something in that area ?  I find it hard to believe that
>>> you could have _lost_ the normal PATH (which would account for the
>>> zip, unzip, make messages), because at least in 2.4.2 the first part
>>> of the build looks to be a conventional configure which would crap
>>> out if /usr/bin was no longer in the PATH.
>>>
>>>  The only other things I might query are whether you correctly
>>> installed the binary openjdk, and whether you applied all the
>>> icedtea patches ?  Oh, and you ought to re-download the current
>>> version, because it was a vulnerability fix.
>>>
>>>  In my own script for building icedtea, I set the following before I
>>> try to build the BLFS-7.5 version:
>>> export JAVA_HOME=/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin
>>> export ANT_HOME=/opt/ant
>>> export CLASSPATH=/usr/share/java:/usr/share/java/junit-4.11
>>> export PATH="$PATH:/opt/OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-bin/bin:/opt/ant/bin"
>>>
>>>  I will hazard a guess that ANT_HOME has not yet come into play when
>>> your build fails, but the other parts - with whichever version of
>>> the OpenJDK bin you have installed - need to be set appropriately.
>>>
>>> ĸen
>>> --
>>> das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce
>
>
>
>> When people are TESTING the versions of the book before making them a
>> release I am having a very hard time believing that what they are doing
>> to
>> compile the package and what they have written that they have done are
>> the
>> exact same things.  If they were, then someone such as me who is
>> following
>> through the written instructions and copying and pasting them exactly
>> would be able to make it work from a bare hard drive.  This is clearly
>> not
>> the case.
>
> I am having a hard time believing that you have followed through the
> written instructions. When we do that, some times we forget some step.
>
> Ken, who was very kind replying above, does copy and paste instructions
> to update packages, but has all scripted.
>
> I always script. Occasionally, I copy and paste.
>
> It is a little difficult to try and help someone who explicitly writes
> not to trust us. If you do not trust us, will you trust our help? Also,
> if you do not trust us, then you do not trust the book, why then spend
> so much time building it?
>
> Still trying to help, although I do not believe you will trust what I am
> going to write: the best thing to do is to script. Copy and paste to a
> script and use it to install. Later, you can check if something was
> forgotten.
>
> --
> []s,
> Fernando
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>

Hello,

I get the point you make Fernando.  I am sorry but I have written
technical documentation myself for server setups and I guess I have a
different approach with regards to it.  I am frustrated because I HAVE
followed the instructions to the letter.

I do not script ANYTHING if I can avoid it.  I like to see what is going
on and fix any issues that come up.

My approach to testing technical writing is to do the installation and
document every step that I have done at the time and after the
installation is completed, then I expand my notes and put it into proper
sentences and steps, then I go through the server setup as per my own
written instructions and make sure that they are correct.

Sorry for sounding harsh, I am not meaning to be.

I also notice that the issues I am having are to do with the fact that the

SYSTEMD version of the BLFS book was taken offline.  I have downloaded the
svn copy and am trying to get it converted to html so I can see the
differences.

Please if someone can tell me if copying the contents of /usr/bin to /bin
will cause any major issues I would appreciate it.  I need this working as
I have spent way too many hours getting to this point to have to trash it
yet again and ditch the systemd version and go through the other LFS
version.

Regards,

Christopher.




More information about the blfs-support mailing list