SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
You might want to check the last entry to the attached diff file.
I haven't actually tested it yet. Haven't had enough time. Will get
to it in a day or three.
Also attached is the latest version of the LFS ch5 build for Slackware.
Eliminated the programs "dejagnu" and "check". It seems to work here.
Question: Are the pre_elflibs and post_elflib routines in sfsbuild1.sh necessary
for building on x86_64? I can't seem to find any reference to them in the source
files, but admit I may have missed something.
If they are needed, then the packages in /home need to be different:
installpkg cxxlibs-6.0.18-x86_64-1.txz vs installpkg cxxlibs-6.0.18-i486-1.txz, etc.
Distribution: slackware, slackware from scratch, LFS, slackware [arm], linux Mint...
Posts: 1,547
Rep:
you're right, I forgot to manage the case of x86_64 for pre_elf and post_elf.
For the time being, I'm trying to solve the new dep. for ghostscript which are not stabilized.
In sfsbuild1.sh, under "# BUILD package treatment", shouldn't the xfce entry be
"cd /slacksrc/$SRCDIR/$PACKNAME && chmod +x xfce-build-all.sh && ./xfce-build-all.sh" instead of
"cd /slacksrc/$SRCDIR/$DIRNAME && chmod +x xfce-build-all.sh && ./xfce-build-all.sh"?
Haven't run it that far yet. It builds build1_s.list stuff just fine, except I still have the
problem of "/tools/bin/{perl,sh,bash}" being hard coded into some of the programs, forcing me to
recompile them after deleting the tools directory. Well, I'll find the answer eventually.
Added a new gcc.SlackBuild. A patch to create it is attached. It differs from the old
SlackBuild in that it is complete in itself. Give it an argument and it only compiles
c, c++, and fortran. Run without an argument and it tries to compile everything.
Aside from my usual problems (see next reply), the following things went wrong:
1) The llvm patch seems wrong. It leaves us compiling llvm with gcc twice, instead of
compiling with clang the second time. Attached is a copy of the original patch.
2) Xfce looks for the build script in xfce/xfce. Removed the extra xfce.
The problems I've been having are mostly related to references to /tools/bin are
hardcoded into the files after build1_s.list is run.
In addition, on the last build, find would not work. No matter what I looked for
it returned "File not found." When I recompiled it I also had to recompile bash,
can't remember why. Memo to self: Keep better notes.
After the compile, if I go to /usr/bin and 'grep "tools/bin", this is what I get:
Distribution: slackware, slackware from scratch, LFS, slackware [arm], linux Mint...
Posts: 1,547
Rep:
Here is something solving your problems with (grep 'tools/bin' *) not empty.
Not the smartest manner, but it works.
The remaining message should go with the gcc-all build.
Okay, just finished building xfce using the latest sfsbuild1.sh & sfsinit.sh
Had to rebuild findutils and bash again. Findutils to continue after build1_s.list,
because it gave error messages instead of finding files. Bash worked all the way
until building gcc-all, then the program couldn't find gnat.
Must apologize again. The last gcc.SlackBuild patch I sent was the wrong one. The correct one
is attached, along with diff files for sfsbuild1 & sfsinit. As usual, ignore pathnames.
I am following this thread with a lot of interest.
I read through most scripts and I wonder why some packages are installed/build. It seems to me a few are not needed.
Some examples: rpm and rp2tgz might be usefull but I don't think these are needed to build other packages.
bin (probably needed)
help2man (probably for docs/man)
slacktrack (needed for linuxdoc-tools which is needed for docs)
tetex and tetex-doc and ed (probably to build some docs)
mc and thus slang/slang1 (I do not need mc)
some internationalization and libs like dmapi, libidn
mm
svgalib
lvm2 for a desktop install?
ncftp and lftp
dhcp and dhcpcd
Probably a few more and they could probably be removed if you do not install all docs and thus edit a lot of slackbuilds.
libpthread-stubs can be removed if you add a sed
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.