LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 05-04-2016, 06:21 AM   #181
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,132

Rep: Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993Reputation: 6993

Well, the patch written by Larry for the SBo script of qt5 modifies the qtwebengine source (actually Chromium sourcecode) to match the changes in mozilla-nss. Whereas the patch I linked to is how it has been solved in Qt, by the Qt developers themselves:

Code:
[PATCH] Use system NSS only for certificate handling

Compiling against NSS 3.23 fails with current Chromium. Also, with NSS
3.21 there are failures connecting to e.g. google.com.

Fix this by adapting the setup endorsed by upstream Chromium: BoringSSL
is always used for cryptography, and NSS only for certificate handlng.
 
Old 05-04-2016, 07:27 AM   #182
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 4,205

Rep: Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431
Yes, it's a different patch
Probably we need to include it in SBo
I will test this patch soon
 
Old 05-04-2016, 07:41 AM   #183
ponce
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,596

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
As Larry wrote the previous patch and is the maintainer on SBo for qt5 I would prefer if he reviews the new one before it gets committed.
 
Old 05-04-2016, 11:48 PM   #184
ecoslacker
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 29

Rep: Reputation: 0
I was finally able to build qt5, the SBo-git file was corrupt for some reason (I guess connection issues) and I didn't notice that.

Also poppler-qt5 still points the old version of poppler 0.42.0.

So, thanks for all the help!
 
Old 05-05-2016, 12:52 AM   #185
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 4,205

Rep: Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431Reputation: 1431
I have pushed poppler-qt5 in my branch but not yet merged into master
 
Old 05-11-2016, 06:51 AM   #186
theget
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Spain
Distribution: Slackware64 Current
Posts: 11

Rep: Reputation: 0
for me its working.. yesterday installed sbopkg on a -current , no issues yet.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 01:26 PM   #187
brobr
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 659

Rep: Reputation: 170Reputation: 170
In academic: finchtv-1.3.1 is no longer downloadable from geospiza. A direct link that gets it from cyberspace is: http://freecode.com/urls/c89c7ebc458...462150e7d13469

the md5sum of that download is identical to the source I had on my computer (originally from geospiza) and as given in the current info-file:
Code:
bafea0b08c5348cbe745d1a4857948a4  /home/sbo_64/cache/finchtv_1_3_1.tar.gz
Maybe best to put this in the the source-repository for slackbuilds and provide a link to that from the info-file as this program won't ever be upgraded for unix; the next version is only for mac/windows.

Last edited by brobr; 05-13-2016 at 01:29 PM.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 01:51 PM   #188
ponce
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,596

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I'm afraid that's not possible: quoting from the README
Code:
NOTE!
This program is free, but you should REGISTER in order to get it.
This means you have to use a web browser to download the "source"
tarball.
if geospiza people require that, they have to provide the 1.3.1 tarball (and if they don't someone should complain directly to them): we cannot do like freecode (that seems not to care about it).

Last edited by ponce; 05-13-2016 at 02:05 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-13-2016, 02:57 PM   #189
brobr
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 659

Rep: Reputation: 170Reputation: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponce View Post
I'm afraid that's not possible: quoting from the README
Code:
NOTE!
This program is free, but you should REGISTER in order to get it.
This means you have to use a web browser to download the "source"
tarball.
if geospiza people require that, they have to provide the 1.3.1 tarball (and if they don't someone should complain directly to them): we cannot do like freecode (that seems not to care about it).
You're right; they still ship it themselves; I noticed after going through the registration motions (see png). But the Sbo script does not work as one would expect because of that.. you get a download error. Maybe the Sbo-script should explicitly put that README message as the output-error after not finding the source????? That would still keep things simple; but you might reply that one is always supposed to check the Readme, even for programs one is very familiar with.. Anyway, with the need to register for it, should it not go into /opt???
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	geospiza-png-Screenshot_2016-05-13_20-43-18.png
Views:	17
Size:	57.3 KB
ID:	21778  
 
Old 05-13-2016, 03:47 PM   #190
55020
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Yorks. W.R. 167397
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,307
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by brobr View Post
But the Sbo script does not work as one would expect because of that.. you get a download error. Maybe the Sbo-script should explicitly put that README message as the output-error after not finding the source?????
The script doesn't download anything. The script doesn't even know there's been an error. If you're using sbopkg, it's sbopkg that gives you that error. Maybe Willy would consider a patch. Other tools may handle it already, eg. I've taught slackrepo about the five packages to which this situation applies (Xyce, amd-app-sdk, jdk, finchtv, J-Link) and you get a nice message telling you what to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brobr View Post
Anyway, with the need to register for it, should it not go into /opt???
That's not what /opt is for. Simply, /opt is for anything that can't easily be persuaded to use the conventional directories. Maybe it's the tendency for proprietary software to be 'special' that has misled you.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 04:45 PM   #191
brobr
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 659

Rep: Reputation: 170Reputation: 170
This thread is about SBo scripts, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020 View Post
The script doesn't download anything. The script doesn't even know there's been an error.
Would inserting something like this
Code:
# Check for source archive availability
SOURCE="${PRGNAM}_${SRCVER}.tar.gz"

if ![ -f {$SOURCE} ]; then
   # Source archive not present. Abort build
   echo "Source archive '$(basename ${SOURCE})' not found. Did you register for the software and downloaded it yourself? Please check the Readme. Aborting the build."
   exit -1
fi
just before un-tar-gz-ing the source not do the trick? One just have to make the slackbuild aware of this very possible error...

PS I basically nicked that bit from Simone Giustetti's iscan.Slackbuild

Last edited by brobr; 05-13-2016 at 04:47 PM.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 05:02 PM   #192
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,328

Rep: Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042
Quote:
Originally Posted by brobr View Post
Would inserting something like this
Code:
# Check for source archive availability
SOURCE="${PRGNAM}_${SRCVER}.tar.gz"

if ![ -f {$SOURCE} ]; then
   # Source archive not present. Abort build
   echo "Source archive '$(basename ${SOURCE})' not found. Did you register for the software and downloaded it yourself? Please check the Readme. Aborting the build."
   exit -1
fi
just before un-tar-gz-ing the source not do the trick? One just have to make the slackbuild aware of this very possible error...
I think that is going away from what SlackBuilds are supposed to accomplish. They are designed to build a program from source that is locally on the machine. If that source isn't there, tar will complain and the SlackBuild will exit. I don't see any reason to complicate the scripts just because the way you get the source (which isn't accomplished with the script) is different from most. As 55020 mentioned, if a check were to be added, it would belong in sbopkg, not the SlackBuild itself.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 05:56 PM   #193
brobr
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 659

Rep: Reputation: 170Reputation: 170
Oh, I see, did I stumble on a sectarian issue; manualdownload-builders vs slackpackagers vs sbopkgers? All using the same scripts but somehow it's not the same in the end.... Anyway, I am not proposing this check for each SlackBuild for each package in all the versions of the repository; that would be silly; it's just that the combination of script and info-file (that both live in the same tar.gz) yield an error specific for this package (leaving out the ones 55020 mentioned), because of the way the source has to get retrieved, when combined with automatic downloading (is that specific for sbopkg only?? ).

What makes it wrong to adjust a slackbuild to make thinks work for a more general public as long as it does not affect the principle of building from source present on the machine? Why would a couple of extra lines that are not needed for home-downloaders be hurtful if it does not affect their method of compiling but could make it easier for someone else using a tool that automates this?? Is this not what maintainers can decide when they adjust build templates? I am just asking; I am all for pragmatics to make things work; principles are guides one might need to step away from when something different comes along..

Last edited by brobr; 05-13-2016 at 05:58 PM.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 07:33 PM   #194
montagdude
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2016
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,790

Rep: Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370
I don't really see the point of doing that. One should be reading the README anyway even if they are using sbopkg or another script to automate the process. I'm not sure how sbopkg works, but in my own script that I use to manage SlackBuilds, I have an option to get the source from a local directory instead of downloading it from the url in the info file. That way, in cases like this you can still use it to build and install but skip the download without throwing an error. Maybe a similar option could be added to sbopkg if it doesn't already have it, but I agree that the SlackBuild is not the place to put such checks.

Last edited by montagdude; 05-13-2016 at 07:36 PM.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 09:45 PM   #195
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,328

Rep: Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042Reputation: 5042
Quote:
Originally Posted by brobr View Post
Oh, I see, did I stumble on a sectarian issue; manualdownload-builders vs slackpackagers vs sbopkgers? All using the same scripts but somehow it's not the same in the end.... Anyway, I am not proposing this check for each SlackBuild for each package in all the versions of the repository; that would be silly; it's just that the combination of script and info-file (that both live in the same tar.gz) yield an error specific for this package (leaving out the ones 55020 mentioned), because of the way the source has to get retrieved, when combined with automatic downloading (is that specific for sbopkg only?? ).

What makes it wrong to adjust a slackbuild to make thinks work for a more general public as long as it does not affect the principle of building from source present on the machine? Why would a couple of extra lines that are not needed for home-downloaders be hurtful if it does not affect their method of compiling but could make it easier for someone else using a tool that automates this?? Is this not what maintainers can decide when they adjust build templates? I am just asking; I am all for pragmatics to make things work; principles are guides one might need to step away from when something different comes along..
The thing that I think you aren't understanding is that the SlackBuilds are not meant for any portion of downloading the source, including checking if the source exists (although, that occurs as a byproduct of trying to extract the source, since it will fail if the source isn't there or isn't a proper archive). It is the job of something outside of the SlackBuild to ensure the download is there, either the automated builder (sbopkg, et al) or the person manually starting the download. With sbopkg, it shouldn't even attempt to run the SlackBuild, because the download won't be there, and it would've errorred out either during the download or during the MD5 check. The SlackBuild wouldn't even be accessed to run the little check you're proposing.

And if you are the one manually running it, it is on you to verify the download occurred and that the MD5 matches the .info file. In that case, it would still fail your checks before the SlackBuild is even run.

As others have mentioned, you should be reading the READMEs for each package before you attempt to build it. The package maintainers write those to ensure that the package builders (you) have all the information needed to properly compile the package.

To repeat, the realization that the download isn't correct should be found before the SlackBuild is even run, either by an automated script or by you.
 
  


Reply

Tags
current, sbo, sbopkg, slackrepo


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Error building gst1-plugins-good 1.4.1 from SBO l0rddarkf0rce Slackware 4 10-06-2014 05:58 PM
[SOLVED] Failure building nvidia-kernel Slackbuild from SBo sysfce2 Slackware 7 07-02-2011 01:10 AM
problems building fontforge from SBo gtludwig Slackware 7 05-12-2010 01:52 PM
Pls help me take my 1st step! verysoon Fedora - Installation 2 12-12-2005 07:49 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration