From diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org Thu May 8 12:16:09 2008 From: diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org (Alf mel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 06:16:09 -0600 Subject: Procps header files Message-ID: <200805080616.09779.alf@mypals.org> While trying to install open-vm-tools (post DIY-Linux) version 2008.04.14-87182 I received an error stating that proc/sysinfo.h was not found and that procps was unusable. I dug a bit deeper and saw that procps installs a library in /lib (libproc-3.2.7.so) but the package doesn't install any header files. I looked at the source and found the right header file under the proc directory, along with a series of other header files. I added two lines to my proc install that fixed the problem: mkdir -pv ${PM_DEST}/usr/include/proc cp -v proc/*.h ${PM_DEST}/usr/include/proc The VMware guys are known for not always doing things right. However, based on the fact that procps installs a shared library but no headers seems rather odd. Should headers be installed along with the library in procps? Is this something that needs to become part of the book? -- @ - Alf From diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org Thu May 8 12:30:14 2008 From: diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org (Alexander E. Patrakov) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 18:30:14 +0600 Subject: Procps header files In-Reply-To: <200805080616.09779.alf@mypals.org> References: <200805080616.09779.alf@mypals.org> Message-ID: <4822F256.3030004@gmail.com> Alf mel wrote: > While trying to install open-vm-tools (post DIY-Linux) version > 2008.04.14-87182 I received an error stating that proc/sysinfo.h was not > found and that procps was unusable. > > I dug a bit deeper and saw that procps installs a library in /lib > (libproc-3.2.7.so) but the package doesn't install any header files. I > looked at the source and found the right header file under the proc > directory, along with a series of other header files. I added two lines to > my proc install that fixed the problem: > > mkdir -pv ${PM_DEST}/usr/include/proc > cp -v proc/*.h ${PM_DEST}/usr/include/proc > > The VMware guys are known for not always doing things right. However, based > on the fact that procps installs a shared library but no headers seems > rather odd. Should headers be installed along with the library in procps? > Is this something that needs to become part of the book? The library is installed for internal use only, and thus open-vm-tools are broken. Since no other packages are supposed to use the API provided by this shared library, installation of the header is not necessary. OTOH, Debian installs all *.h files exactly as you describe, for broken programs to use. -- Alexander E. Patrakov From diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org Thu May 8 12:40:19 2008 From: diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org (Alf mel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 06:40:19 -0600 Subject: Procps header files In-Reply-To: <4822F256.3030004@gmail.com> References: <200805080616.09779.alf@mypals.org> <4822F256.3030004@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200805080640.19990.alf@mypals.org> On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:30:14 am Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > The library is installed for internal use only, and thus open-vm-tools > are broken. Since no other packages are supposed to use the API provided > by this shared library, installation of the header is not necessary. open-vm-tools does have a flag to disable the use of procps. I could also file a bug report and see what their response is. Before I do, however, I would like to understand why other packages are not supposed to use libproc. -- @ - Alf From diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org Thu May 8 12:48:21 2008 From: diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org (Alexander E. Patrakov) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 18:48:21 +0600 Subject: Procps header files In-Reply-To: <200805080640.19990.alf@mypals.org> References: <200805080616.09779.alf@mypals.org> <4822F256.3030004@gmail.com> <200805080640.19990.alf@mypals.org> Message-ID: <4822F695.4020306@gmail.com> Alf mel wrote: > open-vm-tools does have a flag to disable the use of procps. I could also > file a bug report and see what their response is. Before I do, however, I > would like to understand why other packages are not supposed to use > libproc. Read procps-3.2.7/proc/module.mk, search for "UNSUPPORTED". -- Alexander E. Patrakov From diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org Sat May 31 03:56:22 2008 From: diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org (Alf mel) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:56:22 -0600 Subject: GCC 4.2.4 - OK to use? Message-ID: <200805302156.22871.alf@mypals.org> I realize everyone on this list is probably as busy as I am. I haven't had much time to play with DIY-Linux. I noticed that GCC 4.2.4 was released a little over a week ago. Has any one had a chance to play with it and see whether it is a Good Thing(TM) and if it is safe to use in DIY-Linux? If not, I can probably find some time sometime next week to test it and report. Thanks. -- @ - Alf From diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org Sat May 31 21:48:20 2008 From: diy-linux-dev@diy-linux.org (Greg Schafer) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 07:48:20 +1000 Subject: GCC 4.2.4 - OK to use? In-Reply-To: <200805302156.22871.alf@mypals.org> References: <200805302156.22871.alf@mypals.org> Message-ID: <20080531214820.GA29818@eyo32.local> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:56:22PM -0600, Alf mel wrote: > I noticed that GCC 4.2.4 was released a little over a week ago. Has any > one had a chance to play with it and see whether it is a Good Thing(TM) > and if it is safe to use in DIY-Linux? No, sorry. Been flat out like a lizard drinking. But if past experience is anything to go by, GCC point releases like this are generally fine. Regards Greg