astlinux-users

Re: [Astlinux-users] Coreutils compile problem (0.4 branch)

[Sebastian A. <sp...@sy...>]

Darrick Hartman wrote:
> Sebastian Auriol wrote:
>> AstLinux 0.4 branch from today (and older versions) fail to compile
>> in the coreutils package. I wanted to create an AstLinux image with
>> "The minimum needed to build a uClibc development system":
>> 
> Sebastian,
> 
> I'm trying to be as nice and patient as I can with your
> errors.  You get
> a D+ for following instructions though.
> 
> coreutils is not selected by default.  It is not needed for basic
> functionality on an astlinux box.  Most of these functions
> are already
> provided by busybox.

Just because a package is not selected by default means that it may not work
and is not supported? My bad. I thought the "Enable Experimental/Test
Packages" part signified you were selecting a dubious package... Who said I
was after "basic functionality"? I specifically said what I wanted in my
e-mail.

> Please refer back to previous note messages which provide complete
> instructions to have a working box.  Could coreutils be fixed
> to work?
> Probably.  Is it even on our list?  No.  The goal of this
> project isn't
> to add everything that you might find on a full blown Linux
> box.  It's
> to provide the needed functionality in the smallest footprint
> necessary to provide that functionality.
> 
> Darrick

What I am after today, as I said at the top of the e-mail you replied to, is
a minimum AstLinux development system since there are so many programs not
included in AstLinux that appear to be very difficult to compile for
AstLinux. If I had an AstLinux install with gcc, make, etc. than I could do
the compiling on the machine, and it would probably be a lot easier to
compile these tiny programs.

If you can suggest a way to set up all the paths, library paths, include
paths, etc. to point only at the right places in my build_XXX tree for an
arbitrary cc or gcc command, then of course I wouldn't need to build cc and
gcc into the AstLinux image and that would be even better. Unfortunately I
am no gcc expert and my attempts thus far appear to have resulted in
conflicting included files.

But forgive me for assuming that a package that has been in AstLinux for
some time (and maybe since the start), and is not labelled as experimental,
works. And, please forgive me for assuming that members of this list would
want to know if such a package did not work.

Kind regards,

Sebastian

Re: [Astlinux-users] Coreutils compile problem (0.4 branch)

[Sebastian A. <sp...@sy...>]

Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> On 3/16/07, Sebastian Auriol <sp...@sy...> wrote:
>> AstLinux 0.4 branch from today (and older versions) fail to compile
>> in the coreutils package. I wanted to create an AstLinux image with
>> "The minimum needed to build a uClibc development system":
>> 
> ..snipped..
> 
> Sebastian,
> 
>   Fixed in trunk and 0.4.  Please try again.

Many thanks, Kristian - it does indeed work now.

Sebastian

Re: [Astlinux-users] Coreutils compile problem (0.4 branch)

[Sebastian A. <sp...@sy...>]

Darrick Hartman wrote:
> Sebastian,
> 
> Perhaps I should apologize a little.  I misunderstood what
> you meant by
> "The minimum needed to build a uClibc development system".
> 
> After your clarification, I understand what you are trying to do.  I
> don't necessarily agree with your plans, but I will clarify this one
> more time. 
> 
> Yes, the only packages known to build and that have been tested by
> myself and Kristian are those that are included in the default
> astlinux.config.  Other packages may work, but in all
> likelihood, many
> of them are outdated and may need small or very big changes to work.

Thanks for the clarification.

> Sebastian Auriol wrote:
>> But forgive me for assuming that a package that has been in AstLinux
>> for some time (and maybe since the start), and is not labelled as
>> experimental, works. And, please forgive me for assuming that
>> members of this list would want to know if such a package did not
>> work. 
> 
> I only recently added the experimental flag.  I haven't had time to
> update the packages which are not included by default.  I've included
> this history in the past, but I'll restate it again.
> Astlinux was build
> using buildroot2.  Some of the packages were never tried.  At
> one point
> they probably built ok.  Since they have been unmaintained
> for so long,
> they may need updating.  As time allows I'll try to flag these as
> testing/experimental, but if you wanted to help, you can test packages
> (as long as you understand that they may not build) and let
> us know that
> they don't work.
> 
> Darrick

OK, I understand.

FYI:
No, big deal - I just disabled the package - I don't think I need it anyway,
but I have tested the "ed" package and it gets a 404 Not Found when it tries
to download a patch, both from debian.org and the mirror at astlinux.org.

Also, FYI, the following non-default packages compile successfully (latest
0.4 svn, i586):

[seb@IVRA6 0.4-svn-MAR]$ diff .config astlinux.config
37c37
< BR2_JLEVEL=1
---
> BR2_JLEVEL=2
131d130
< BR2_PACKAGE_EXPERIMENTAL=y
147,149c146,148
< BR2_PACKAGE_BZIP2=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_COREUTILS=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_DIFFUTILS=y
---
> # BR2_PACKAGE_BZIP2 is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_COREUTILS is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_DIFFUTILS is not set
151c150
< BR2_PACKAGE_FINDUTILS=y
---
> # BR2_PACKAGE_FINDUTILS is not set
154,161c153,160
< BR2_PACKAGE_GAWK=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_GCC_TARGET=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_CCACHE_TARGET=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_GREP=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_MAKE=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_PATCH=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_SED=y
< BR2_PACKAGE_TAR=y
---
> # BR2_PACKAGE_GAWK is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_GCC_TARGET is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_CCACHE_TARGET is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_GREP is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_MAKE is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_PATCH is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_SED is not set
> # BR2_PACKAGE_TAR is not set
324c323
< BR2_PACKAGE_SYSKLOGD=y
---
> # BR2_PACKAGE_SYSKLOGD is not set

Have a nice weekend.

Kind regards,

Sebastian

Re: [Astlinux-users] Coreutils compile problem (0.4 branch)

[Darrick H. <dha...@dj...>]

Sebastian Auriol wrote:
  > Just because a package is not selected by default means that it may 
not work
> and is not supported? My bad. I thought the "Enable Experimental/Test
> Packages" part signified you were selecting a dubious package... Who said I
> was after "basic functionality"? I specifically said what I wanted in my
> e-mail.

Sebastian,

Perhaps I should apologize a little.  I misunderstood what you meant by 
"The minimum needed to build a uClibc development system".

After your clarification, I understand what you are trying to do.  I 
don't necessarily agree with your plans, but I will clarify this one 
more time.

Yes, the only packages known to build and that have been tested by 
myself and Kristian are those that are included in the default 
astlinux.config.  Other packages may work, but in all likelihood, many 
of them are outdated and may need small or very big changes to work.

> But forgive me for assuming that a package that has been in AstLinux for
> some time (and maybe since the start), and is not labelled as experimental,
> works. And, please forgive me for assuming that members of this list would
> want to know if such a package did not work.

I only recently added the experimental flag.  I haven't had time to 
update the packages which are not included by default.  I've included 
this history in the past, but I'll restate it again.  Astlinux was build 
using buildroot2.  Some of the packages were never tried.  At one point 
they probably built ok.  Since they have been unmaintained for so long, 
they may need updating.  As time allows I'll try to flag these as 
testing/experimental, but if you wanted to help, you can test packages 
(as long as you understand that they may not build) and let us know that 
they don't work.

Darrick

-- 
Darrick Hartman
DJH Solutions, LLC
http://www.djhsolutions.com
Office:  877.901.3113
   Cell:  920.901.3113