Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-08 14:43:19
|
On 07/08/2003 10:03:35 AM Bruce Smith wrote: >> From now on everything which is in the directories: >> $CDDIR/bin >> $CDDIR/lib >> $CDDIR/sbin >> $CDDIR/usr/bin >> $CDDIR/usr/lib >> $CDDIR/usr/sbin >> >> will be linked into the appropriate folder. > >So this could make a lot of optional packages no longer optional? > >Instead of making them optional, just put them on the CD and be done >with them? Hmmm, what do others think about this? When move to USB storage or flas= h disks, this makes sense. >I'm thinking of the H.323 gatekeeper I'm currently working on. >The first thing it requires is "pwlib". I can just put the libraries >in $CDDIR/lib (or $CDDIR/usr/lib), and I'm done. No need to make this= >package optional? > >It also needs OpenH323 lib. Same question. > >And finally the gatekeeper itself. Just put in $CDDIR[/usr]/[s]bin ??= ? >No need to make optional? Even for compiling? You could do this, but I'm not sure if you want it. Don't forgett that the CD has to start spinning everytime the binary or= the libs are accessed. Heiko = |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-08 21:51:08
|
On 07/08/2003 05:03:45 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >I'm thinking of the H.323 gatekeeper I'm currently working on. >> >The first thing it requires is "pwlib". I can just put the librari= es >> >in $CDDIR/lib (or $CDDIR/usr/lib), and I'm done. No need to make >this >> >package optional? >> > >> >It also needs OpenH323 lib. Same question. >> > >> >And finally the gatekeeper itself. Just put in $CDDIR[/usr]/[s]bin= >??? >> >No need to make optional? Even for compiling? >> >> You could do this, but I'm not sure if you want it. >> Don't forgett that the CD has to start spinning everytime the binary= >or the >> libs are accessed. > >I made the package optional, as far as compiling is concerned (it take= s >forever to compile). > >The size of libraries and binaries are pushing 15MB, quite a chunk of >memory. So I'm really tempted to install it under CDDIR and see how i= t >runs direct from CD. Thoughts? I think it's worth trying it out. Without any experience how it works, it's hard to make a decision. Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-08 22:14:11
|
> >> >And finally the gatekeeper itself.... > > > >The size of libraries and binaries are pushing 15MB, quite a chunk of > >memory. So I'm really tempted to install it under CDDIR and see how it > >runs direct from CD. Thoughts? > > I think it's worth trying it out. Without any experience how it works, > it's hard to make a decision. Agree. Now we need to find someone who knows how to run it, and can do some testing. :-) The library packages also produce some files for development. (/usr/include/*.h /usr/lib/*.a) Are they worth installing on the CD? Or should I skip them? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-09 15:19:12
|
On 07/08/2003 06:13:51 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >> >And finally the gatekeeper itself.... >> > >> >The size of libraries and binaries are pushing 15MB, quite a chunk = of >> >memory. So I'm really tempted to install it under CDDIR and see ho= w >it >> >runs direct from CD. Thoughts? >> >> I think it's worth trying it out. Without any experience how it work= s, >> it's hard to make a decision. > >Agree. Now we need to find someone who knows how to run it, >and can do some testing. :-) > >The library packages also produce some files for development. >(/usr/include/*.h /usr/lib/*.a) >Are they worth installing on the CD? Or should I skip them? Don't install those files, they're only needed for compiling. Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-09 15:40:03
|
> >The library packages also produce some files for development. > >(/usr/include/*.h /usr/lib/*.a) > >Are they worth installing on the CD? Or should I skip them? > > Don't install those files, OK. > they're only needed for compiling. I understand that. Which brings up another dumb question: Why is gcc3 available as an optional package on DL? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-09 15:50:37
|
On 07/09/2003 11:39:47 AM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >The library packages also produce some files for development. >> >(/usr/include/*.h /usr/lib/*.a) >> >Are they worth installing on the CD? Or should I skip them? >> >> Don't install those files, > >OK. > >> they're only needed for compiling. > >I understand that. Which brings up another dumb question: > >Why is gcc3 available as an optional package on DL? In order to be able to setup a DISTCC build cluster, same reason for binutils. Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-09 17:00:04
|
> >Why is gcc3 available as an optional package on DL? > > In order to be able to setup a DISTCC build cluster, same reason for > binutils. OK, I always wondered why it was there. :-) I have the GNU Gatekeeper installed in my local ISO now. After booting DL in VMware, "ldd" shows I'm missing libssl.so.0.9.6. Is that included in some other package? Or how do I get it there? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-09 17:46:37
|
On 07/09/2003 12:59:51 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >Why is gcc3 available as an optional package on DL? >> >> In order to be able to setup a DISTCC build cluster, same reason for= >> binutils. > >OK, I always wondered why it was there. :-) > >I have the GNU Gatekeeper installed in my local ISO now. >After booting DL in VMware, "ldd" shows I'm missing libssl.so.0.9.6. >Is that included in some other package? Or how do I get it there? It should be in the /lib directory, at least it is on my ISOs. Can you do a "make clean install iso" and verify it again? Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-09 18:16:00
|
> >I have the GNU Gatekeeper installed in my local ISO now. > >After booting DL in VMware, "ldd" shows I'm missing libssl.so.0.9.6. > >Is that included in some other package? Or how do I get it there? > > It should be in the /lib directory, at least it is on my ISOs. > Can you do a "make clean install iso" and verify it again? I'm running a fresh install following a make mrproper (with additional gatekeeper stuff in $CDDIR) After some searching, I see some optional packages include libssl. In fact, of the few package I'm selecting, it's included in all of: LYNX, LFTP, WGET, OPENVPN. Seems like a lot of duplication. Which still leaves me the problem of how to get it there for gnugk since I'm not making an optional package, I'm installing in $CDDIR. What happens if I install a _duplicate_ copy in $CDDIR/usr/lib ??? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-09 18:27:58
|
On 07/09/2003 02:15:48 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> >I have the GNU Gatekeeper installed in my local ISO now. >> >After booting DL in VMware, "ldd" shows I'm missing libssl.so.0.9.6= . >> >Is that included in some other package? Or how do I get it there? >> >> It should be in the /lib directory, at least it is on my ISOs. >> Can you do a "make clean install iso" and verify it again? > >I'm running a fresh install following a make mrproper >(with additional gatekeeper stuff in $CDDIR) > >After some searching, I see some optional packages include libssl. >In fact, of the few package I'm selecting, it's included in all of: >LYNX, LFTP, WGET, OPENVPN. Seems like a lot of duplication. Inside the package we always have duplicate libs, because we don't want= to have dependencies between the packages. >Which still leaves me the problem of how to get it there for gnugk >since I'm not making an optional package, I'm installing in $CDDIR. >What happens if I install a _duplicate_ copy in $CDDIR/usr/lib ??? You should not need this, the copy_libs script adds the needed librarie= s to the package directory. Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-09 18:31:32
|
> >Which still leaves me the problem of how to get it there for gnugk > >since I'm not making an optional package, I'm installing in $CDDIR. > >What happens if I install a _duplicate_ copy in $CDDIR/usr/lib ??? > > You should not need this, the copy_libs script adds the needed libraries to > the package directory. Right, but I'm not making a package. I can copy libssl to $CDDIR/usr/lib, which means it will also exist in /lib when other optional packages are installed that contain libssl. Is it a problem to have the same library in BOTH /lib & /usr/lib ??? - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-09 19:25:22
|
> I can copy libssl to $CDDIR/usr/lib, which means it will also exist in > /lib when other optional packages are installed that contain libssl. > > Is it a problem to have the same library in BOTH /lib & /usr/lib ??? I tried it, and it doesn't seem to hurt anything. When another package installs libssl in /lib, then "ldd" on gnugk shows it's using /lib/libssl.... When libssl is NOT loaded in /lib, "ldd" on gnugk shows it's using /usr/lib/libssl... - BS |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2003-07-09 20:15:55
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > > When another package installs libssl in /lib, then "ldd" on gnugk shows > it's using /lib/libssl.... > > When libssl is NOT loaded in /lib, "ldd" on gnugk shows it's using > /usr/lib/libssl... May I suggest you play with config/etc/initrd/software and make it more intelligent so it takes into account that a libssl....so does not need to get copied to the ramdisk if there already exists a /usr/lib/libssl... I know this might affect the speed of the software installation, depending on how this is done. There come two possibilities to my mind. Either the package gets analized before installation and then tar is told not to install certain files or the package gets fully installed and afterwards the duplicate libs get removed from the ramdisc. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock Linux Services Lobenstock URL: http://www.lsl.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-10 14:51:58
|
> > When another package installs libssl in /lib, then "ldd" on gnugk shows > > it's using /lib/libssl.... > > > > When libssl is NOT loaded in /lib, "ldd" on gnugk shows it's using > > /usr/lib/libssl... > > May I suggest you play with config/etc/initrd/software and make it > more intelligent so it takes into account that a libssl....so does > not need to get copied to the ramdisk if there already exists a > /usr/lib/libssl... That would defeat the purpose of having it in RAM. I assume that these optional packages are loaded into RAM (instead of running direct from CD) because they want to run fast. If I start removing their libraries from memory, then they will need to fire up the CD for their library access. The way it currently works, it will use the RAM library if it's present, otherwise it will use the library on CD. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <hz...@pr...> - 2003-07-09 19:37:43
|
On 07/09/2003 03:25:09 PM Bruce Smith wrote: >> I can copy libssl to $CDDIR/usr/lib, which means it will also exist = in >> /lib when other optional packages are installed that contain libssl.= >> >> Is it a problem to have the same library in BOTH /lib & /usr/lib ??= ? > >I tried it, and it doesn't seem to hurt anything. > >When another package installs libssl in /lib, then "ldd" on gnugk show= s >it's using /lib/libssl.... > >When libssl is NOT loaded in /lib, "ldd" on gnugk shows it's using >/usr/lib/libssl... Yeah, BUT copy_libs really needs to take care of this and adds it to th= e package directory. When this doesn't happen automatically, then we have a bug in the scrip= t. Unfortunately I can't look into this toady. cya Heiko = |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-09 19:43:36
|
> >> Is it a problem to have the same library in BOTH /lib & /usr/lib ??? > > > >I tried it, and it doesn't seem to hurt anything. > > > >When another package installs libssl in /lib, then "ldd" on gnugk shows > >it's using /lib/libssl.... > > > >When libssl is NOT loaded in /lib, "ldd" on gnugk shows it's using > >/usr/lib/libssl... > > Yeah, BUT copy_libs really needs to take care of this and adds it to the > package directory. > When this doesn't happen automatically, then we have a bug in the script. I'm not using copy_libs, I'm doing a "make install" with --prefix=$CDDIR/usr (and I'm not creating an optional package). No need to think there is a bug in copy_libs. :-) - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2003-07-08 14:59:23
|
> >> From now on everything which is in the directories: > >> $CDDIR/bin > >> $CDDIR/lib > >> $CDDIR/sbin > >> $CDDIR/usr/bin > >> $CDDIR/usr/lib > >> $CDDIR/usr/sbin > >> > >> will be linked into the appropriate folder. > > > >So this could make a lot of optional packages no longer optional? > > > >Instead of making them optional, just put them on the CD and be done > >with them? > > Hmmm, what do others think about this? When move to USB storage or flash > disks, this makes sense. I think it makes sense for _some_ packages now. Especially the interactive (not frequently used) packages. (lynx, wget, diff, ...) I'd much rather have them on CD so they are available when/if I need them, instead of loading them & having them take up memory ALL the time. > >I'm thinking of the H.323 gatekeeper I'm currently working on. > >The first thing it requires is "pwlib". I can just put the libraries > >in $CDDIR/lib (or $CDDIR/usr/lib), and I'm done. No need to make this > >package optional? > > > >It also needs OpenH323 lib. Same question. > > > >And finally the gatekeeper itself. Just put in $CDDIR[/usr]/[s]bin ??? > >No need to make optional? Even for compiling? > > You could do this, but I'm not sure if you want it. > Don't forgett that the CD has to start spinning everytime the binary or the > libs are accessed. It _might_ make sense for some daemons. If a simple binary/daemon is run during boot, it shouldn't have to go back to CD once it's running. I'm not sure about this gatekeeper, since it uses so many libs. - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <br...@ar...> - 2003-07-08 21:03:58
|
> >I'm thinking of the H.323 gatekeeper I'm currently working on. > >The first thing it requires is "pwlib". I can just put the libraries > >in $CDDIR/lib (or $CDDIR/usr/lib), and I'm done. No need to make this > >package optional? > > > >It also needs OpenH323 lib. Same question. > > > >And finally the gatekeeper itself. Just put in $CDDIR[/usr]/[s]bin ??? > >No need to make optional? Even for compiling? > > You could do this, but I'm not sure if you want it. > Don't forgett that the CD has to start spinning everytime the binary or the > libs are accessed. I made the package optional, as far as compiling is concerned (it takes forever to compile). The size of libraries and binaries are pushing 15MB, quite a chunk of memory. So I'm really tempted to install it under CDDIR and see how it runs direct from CD. Thoughts? -------------------------------------------- Bruce Smith br...@ar... System Administrator / Network Administrator Armstrong International, Inc. Three Rivers, Michigan 49093 USA http://www.armstrong-intl.com/ -------------------------------------------- |
