Prev: Iptables problem on Xen
Next: java plug-in Permission denied. Fine as root.
From: zlin50 on 14 Mar 2007 17:39
Hi group,

I'm just installing slackware-11.0 on a fresh partition with 10.2 as
my productive system.

/dev/sda1: slack 10.2
/dev/sda2: something else
/dev/sda3: installing slack 11.0

What I did up to now:
- got slackware-11.0-install-d[1-3].iso from sunsite.rwth-aachen.de
- checked md5sum
- wrote these images to three cd-roms
- restarted from cd-rom #1
- $ setup
- chose expert mode and installed most of the packages excluding stuff
like gimp, kde, imagemagick, ...
- reboot with kernel 2.4.33.3
- installpkg kernel 2.6.17.13 (generic, header, source)
- reboot

up to that point everything was running fine.
especially like to mention that directory /dev looked complete

now:
installpkg checkinstall-1.6.0-i486-2 (from extra/)
....
/usr/sbin/checkinstall -t slackware -S -si --newslack --pkgarch=i486 \
--pkgname=libcap --pkgversion=1.10 --docdir=/usr/doc/ \
--pkgsource="ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/security/linux-
privs/kernel-2.4/libcap-1.10.tar.bz2"

and go several:
pwd: couldn't find directory entry in `../../../' with matching i-node
and finally:
make[1]: Entering directory `/root/libcap-1.10/progs'
Makefile:27: /../Make.Rules: No such file or directory

at that stage, looking again at /dev/ most of the files have been
gone, e.g. /dev/video* didn't exist any longer.

Thinking there might be a problem with 2.6.17.13, I started from
scratch, compiled checkinstall from source using slack.Build and
retried to "checkinstall" libcap from /root/q1/q2/q3/q4/q5/
same error messages but at least, this time no devices have been
killed (looks like).

Using slackware since 1.0 I just can't imagine, that there is such a
bug in a stable release - conclusion: I made a mistake - but where?

Any hint appreciated!
Markus

From: Henrik Carlqvist on 14 Mar 2007 18:33
"zlin50" <zlin50(a)gmx.de> wrote:
> installpkg checkinstall-1.6.0-i486-2 (from extra/)

> Using slackware since 1.0 I just can't imagine, that there is such a
> bug in a stable release - conclusion: I made a mistake - but where?

> Any hint appreciated!

I have also seen some problems with checkinstall 1.6.0 included in /extra
in Slackware 11. My solution was to use the build script and source for
checkinstall 1.5.3 from Slackware 10.2 instead. So far I have seen no
problems with checkinstall 1.5.3 in Slackware 11.

regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root(a)localhost postmaster(a)localhost

From: Christopher Pinon on 15 Mar 2007 08:02
On 2007-03-14, Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist(a)deadspam.com> wrote:
> "zlin50" <zlin50(a)gmx.de> wrote:
>> installpkg checkinstall-1.6.0-i486-2 (from extra/)
>
>> Using slackware since 1.0 I just can't imagine, that there is such a
>> bug in a stable release - conclusion: I made a mistake - but where?
>
>> Any hint appreciated!
>
> I have also seen some problems with checkinstall 1.6.0 included in /extra
> in Slackware 11. My solution was to use the build script and source for
> checkinstall 1.5.3 from Slackware 10.2 instead. So far I have seen no
> problems with checkinstall 1.5.3 in Slackware 11.

For what it's worth, I've been using checkinstall 1.6.0 (from /extra)
with Slackware 11 with no extraordinary* problems. One advantage of
checkinstall 1.6.0 over checkinstall 1.5.3 is that there's an option (it
appears to be the default setting) to build the package _without_
installing it.

I see that checkinstall 1.6.1 is available, so you might just try it,
but I suspect that your problem is a different one, though I couldn't
say what it is based on the info you provided.

*There are certain problems with checkinstall 1.6.0 on Slackware 11 that
I've experienced, but I suspect that this has nothing to do with
Slackware 11 per se. The issue is rather with checkinstall 1.6.0.
Certain problems can arise with programs that have complex 'make
install' routines. Checkinstall 1.6.0 doesn't seem to deal with all
'make install' routines so gracefully.

A concrete example that I can cite is emacs 21.4. I downloaded and
compiled emacs-21.4 from source and wanted to create a package using
checkinstall 1.6.0 and install it. Everything appeared to go smoothly,
but when I started emacs it complained about missing lisp files---emacs
needs a lot of lisp files to run properly. It turns out that
checkinstall 1.6.0 had not included the lisp files for some reason, but
they do get installed if you just run 'make install'. I was able to
replicate this behavior. My work-around was simply to install emacs the
old way, with 'make install'.

Interestingly, checkinstall 1.5.3 did not have this particular problem
with emacs-21.4.

Christopher
From: zlin50 on 15 Mar 2007 08:27
Hi Guys,

thanks for your suggestions!

I'll give Henrik's hint a try and will test checkinstall from 10.2 in
11.0.

@Christopher: I also think, that it's rather a checkinstall than a
slackware(system) topic. But .... having an unstable(?) binary in a
stable distribution is a problem of the distribution - in the end.
And that would be surprising/bothering for me!

Greetings,
Markus

From: Henrik Carlqvist on 15 Mar 2007 17:09
Christopher Pinon <pinon(a)droog.sdf-eu.org> wrote:
> I see that checkinstall 1.6.1 is available, so you might just try it,
> but I suspect that your problem is a different one, though I couldn't
> say what it is based on the info you provided.
>
> *There are certain problems with checkinstall 1.6.0 on Slackware 11 that
> I've experienced,

I have seen and reported some problems like your emacs install, but in my
case it was problems to install perl modules and python modules. I have
also reported a bug that the switch --deldoc=yes does not seem to work.

I don't think that any of those bugs were fixed in 1.6.1.

regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root(a)localhost postmaster(a)localhost

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Iptables problem on Xen
Next: java plug-in Permission denied. Fine as root.