gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel

Re: binutils data

Ken Moffat — 2013-06-20T03:59:56

 Ever since I started.  Well, ever since gcc-4 anyway, and probably
also in the days  of gcc-3.  That's one of the reasons I've had to
keep upgrading my hardware ;-)

 Selected figures I still have for binutils pass 1, all x86_64, all
probably passing CFLAGS=-O2 (so, overwriting the default -O2 -g
here, which explains why mine are so much smaller) - I _did_ do a
build without passing CFLAGS last year, honestly, but it must have
been on the intel machine.

 I reworked my buildscripts around LFS-7.2, before that my timings
were elapsed whole seconds and I won't swear that the space is always
accurate.  Also, the timings depend a little on what I was
building _from_ : sometimes a very similar recent SVN, sometimes an
older release.  In recent builds which I'm keeping, I retime the SBU
after the system has been booted so I can have a reliable SBU for
BLFS edits : typically, the time for binutils pass 1 is about 10%
slower than from system I used to build it - unless that system was
very recent.

old uniprocessor

binutils data

Bruce Dubbs — 2013-06-20T02:23:34

I've noticed some things about binutils lately.  I suppose it is just 
getting bigger and more complex, but the SBU time for it on my system is 
now 124 seconds with the build size 401 M.

Looking back, I see:

SVN-20130616 124 sec 401M binutils-2.23.2 gcc-4.8.1
LFS-7.3      113 sec 412M binutils-2.23.1 gcc-4.7.2
LFS-7.2      110 sec 390M binutils-2.22   gcc-4.7.1
LFS-7.1      104 sec 373M binutils-2.22   gcc-4.6.2
LFS-7.0      101 sec 351M binutils-2.21.1 gcc-4.6.1
LFS-6.8  missing
LFS-6.7       91 sec 312M binutils-2.10.1 gcc-4.5.1

The changes could also be due to gcc.  Has anyone else noticed these 
increases?

   -- Bruce

Re: Lua 5.2

Igor Živković — 2013-06-19T21:14:04

Graphviz doesn't work with 5.2. VLC neither but there are some patches 
for 5.2 support circulating around. Apache, Wireshark-1.10.0 and other 
packages seem to build without errors.

Lua 5.2

Armin K. — 2013-06-19T13:15:37

Can you confirm that all these work with Lua 5.2? I remember VLC
couldn't be compiled when 5.2 was used. I had to revert to 5.1. I see at
Archlinux that they still use 5.1 for Graphviz, VLC, Wireshark. Apache
is known to require 5.1 only.

Also, please patch it to install pkgconfig file and shared library
instead of static one (you can find patches at either gentoo or archlinux).

Re: VLC and D-Bus

Bruce Dubbs — 2013-06-16T16:50:05

Just to comment, I'd like ot point out that some packages, e.g. 
pulseaudio, are difficult to use without D-Bus.  I agree that it is not 
needed for a vanilla LAMP server.

   -- Bruce

Re: Xorg configuration (xorg.conf, xorg.conf.d, etc) also keyboards

Bruce Dubbs — 2013-06-16T16:47:45

Not really.  We all get comfortable with different layouts.  I install 
Xorg in /opt, but the config is in /etc/X11.  My xorg.conf is a bit more 
than the default because I use the proprietary Nvidia driver and have 
two monitors.  For me, I have /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d as a link pointing to 
/opt/xorg/share/X11/xorg.conf.d.  The only thing there is an evdev 
entry.  I suppose I could put the xorg.conf file in xorg.conf.d or 
conversely import the evdev entries into xorg.conf, however it is hard 
to rationalize changing a working system.

   -- Bruce

Re: VLC and D-Bus

Armin K. — 2013-06-16T11:33:48

Just don't add it there by default. It should be fine just to mention
that the switch is needed if dbus is not present. LUA is not in the
book, that's why it's disabled by default.

Re: VLC and D-Bus

Igor Živković — 2013-06-16T11:32:37

Yes, as with Lua it requires --disable-dbus configure switch.

Re: VLC and D-Bus

Armin K. — 2013-06-16T11:30:47

Does it require any switches to disable it?

VLC and D-Bus

Igor Živković — 2013-06-16T11:22:22

Hello,

I'd like to move D-Bus from required to recommended dependency. Since I 
don't use D-Bus on my systems, is there any other package in the book 
which requires VLC compiled with D-Bus support?

Xorg configuration (xorg.conf, xorg.conf.d,etc) also keyboards

Ken Moffat — 2013-06-16T01:31:23

 In current BLFS we don't do much to configure xorg, but when we do
we seem to have a mixture of /etc/X11/xorg.conf (drivers) and
/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d (testing and configuration).

 For some years I've been using ${XORG_PREFIX}/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/
which is what I though was the right way to go [ strictly, I only
ever build in /usr ].  I guess I'm not too fussed about using /etc,
if that is agreed to be preferred, but I now think of an xorg.conf
file as 'legacy', like the core fonts (yes, I know we still have
those, and I think they are a waste of space and SBUs :)

 Variation is a strength, but mixing an xorg.conf file and files in
xorg.conf.d/ seems messy to me.  Maybe I'm just out on my own again
;-)

 Also, the basic book is no doubt fine for people who use an American
keyboard (QWERTY, # on shifted 3, no key to the left of Z), but
everyone else will have to find their own settings.  At one time we
had an example for switching between en_US and ru (it's in
archive/x-setup.xml) with some explanation, bu

Re: [blfs-book] r11293 - trunk/BOOK/x/installing

Ken Moffat — 2013-06-16T01:05:20

 I see that we do that already, although not explaining why (and
presumably it is needed for South Islands).

 The separation of the individual xorg drivers was a good thing, but
like the python and perl modules I find the rendered page
unmanageable.  On everything else there is a whole page for each
package.  Maybe it's just me.

ĸen

Re: [blfs-book] r11293 - trunk/BOOK/x/installing

Ken Moffat — 2013-06-16T00:52:07

 Thanks for the information.  You are right, it wasn't being used.
I prefer to put the conf files (evdev, kbd, and now video) in
/usr/lib/X11/xorg.conf.d/ - with the following I have now had glamor
enabled on my RS780 :

12-glamor.conf
Section "Module"
        Load "dri2"
        Load "glamoregl"
EndSection

20-radeon.conf
Section "Device"
        Identifier "Radeon"
        Driver "radeon"
        Option "AccelMethod" "glamor"
EndSection

 Visibly, everything seemed to work ok like that.  However, running
glxgears at anything larger than its default tiny window, or moving
its window across the screen, reduced the reported frames per second
to values between 37 and 54 FPS instead of the default 60 FPS.  For
comparison, with glamor not enabled I get a consistent 300 - 301
frames in 5 seconds, i.e. 60 FPS.

 This is a "basic" video chip [ on the motherboard ], perhaps PCI-e
cards will show better results.  However, I also note that gentoo's
wiki says that glamor is only usable for R300 and newer - I've still

Re: [blfs-book] r11293 - trunk/BOOK/x/installing

Armin K. — 2013-06-15T21:31:35

Glamor won't be used unless you force it in Xorg.conf. The driver has 
to, however, be compiled against libglamor in order to use it. It was 
originaly meant for Intel hardware as a replacement to UXA, but it was 
replaced and overpowered by now popular SNA.

Re: [blfs-book] r11293 - trunk/BOOK/x/installing

Ken Moffat — 2013-06-15T16:32:04

 Fedora appear to be enabling glamor for all users of the ATI driver,
so it looks as if it will be in common use.  Not sure if I should
reword or not.

ĸen

Re: [blfs-book] r11293 - trunk/BOOK/x/installing

Ken Moffat — 2013-06-15T16:02:12

(moving to -dev for discussion : I pedantically demoted Glamor from
Required to Recommended on radeon (that keeps the deps) because I
hadn't been building it until yesterday.)

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:28:08PM +0200, Armin K. wrote:

 OK, I didn't see that (when I scroll down that page fast its easy
to think I've moved on to a different driver).

So, although my much earlier R600 (RS780) is now using it without
any apparent problems, that combination isn't really tested.

 I could add xcb-util and xorg-server as "Required" and move
Glamor to "optional" with a comment '(Required for recent GPUs, see
"Glamor Acceleration" below)' ?

 The Glamor wiki http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Glamor/
talks about enabling it on intel.  I don't think I'll go there ;-)

ĸen

Re: [blfs-book] r11279 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/platform x/lib xfce/apps xsoft/office xsoft/other

Armin K. — 2013-06-08T09:29:18

For me, VLC is useless without Qt4, too. I never actualy paid attention 
though, but we treat Recommended dependencies as Required (for our 
instructions), or to be precise "Don't inststall recommended 
dependencies unless you know what are you doing".


That's a mistake on my side, I failed to explain it since I made the 
change to the bootscripts without checking the dependency. I was aware 
of that after someone posted it on the mailing list so I just added it 
to the required deps without any explanation or whatsover.


GConf was the main configuration system for GNOME untill the last few 
releases (untill it was obsoleted by GSettings). Since GNOME required a 
part of the GConf which required GTK+3, we set it as recommended. Same 
for Polkit, GNOME mostly requires it for permission granting, so we 
enable it in GConf, too. I am unsure if anything requires GTK+3 in GConf 
since the tool that mostly required it was gone in either 3.2.4 or 3.2.5 
release. Again, I failed to check that. GConf is now being

Re: [blfs-book] r11279 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/platform x/lib xfce/apps xsoft/office xsoft/other

Igor Živković — 2013-06-08T04:12:05

I was wrong about removing GLib completely as I thought 
libcairo-gobject.so also depends on gobject-introspection which requires 
GLib. I was probably also wrong about committing Cairo changes before 
updating Pango dependencies. You only gave me 15 minutes before 
reverting my commit.



I guess it was a lot easier before GTK+3/GNOME3/D-Bus/systemd but I 
would argue if a package builds, runs and does something useful without 
some dependency then that dependency shouldn't be listed as required. It 
doesn't matter if you explicitly have to disable it. It should be 
categorized as optional and noted that it is required for XY package in 
the book.

Take for example VLC. As it stands now someone would think it can't be 
compiled and used without D-Bus. This is just wrong.

Another good example is NTP, which compiles and runs without libcap2 and 
attr as long as you run it as root user. Since BLFS bootscripts don't 
run it as root, libcap2 is listed as required but with no explanation 
whatsoever.

Gnash doe

Re: [blfs-book] r11279 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/platform x/lib xfce/apps xsoft/office xsoft/other

Armin K. — 2013-06-07T17:37:47

I don't care if the package is listed as required or recommeded 
dependency following a big note how "required" is it as long as it is 
listed properly. You removed the dependency at all, which meant that 
Cairo doesn't even depend at Glib 2 at all, plus Pango didn't list it 
but it is strictly required for it. For me it was never important for 
the Cairo case. GTK+ and friends are only packages depend on Cairo (if 
you take out g-i which uses it in its testsuite - which I find useless) 
and because of that, Glib 2 is required for Cairo.

I treat dependencies as required as long as they have not to be disabled 
- do note that cairo can be built without png but you have to explicitly 
disable it - that's a required dep *for me* and it deserves to be listed 
as one.

Re: [blfs-book] r11279 - in trunk/BOOK: . general/graphlib gnome/platform x/lib xfce/apps xsoft/office xsoft/other

Bruce Dubbs — 2013-06-07T17:10:50

I agree that the way we handle dependencies differs whether the 
requirement is required or not.   If it is in the direct required chain, 
then it doesn't need anything special.  However if a package is optional 
and another package does require it, then a note of some kind needs to 
be present.

I think the way gobject-introspection is presented in Cairo is a good 
approach.  Our approach to this has not been 100% consistent in the 
past.  See for instance the Clutter page with optional dependencies to 
build documentation or the method used in gdk-pixbuf.

It may be hard to standardize, but the important thing is to present the 
information.

   -- Bruce

Re: Firefox-21/Xulrunner-21: search box not working (Was: [blfs-support] Firefox-21: search box not working)

Fernando de Oliveira — 2013-06-07T04:12:34

Problem solved. Details in the support list.