[blfs-support] pcre-8.30

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Mon Feb 13 07:22:05 PST 2012


Ken, thank you very much for the replies.

Em 12-02-2012 19:16, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 01:41:09PM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> grep. That error message is from pcre-8.30 build log. It is called from the build script, after installation and ldconfig:
>>
>>       BUILD_DIR_SIZE=`du -sck \
>>       $TMPDIR/$BUILDDIR | grep total | cut -d"t" -f1`
>>
>> I believe you recognize. It is from your suggestion to me, some months ago. And it is good, not only for the intended purpose, but it warned me, with that complaint. I should not have tried to reboot without fixing pcre before.
>>
>> Also it is a shame that I should have also paid more attention to the remarks on BLFS pcre-8.30 page *Command Explanations*
>>
>> "--libdir=/lib: This option makes it install its libraries into /lib. If you reinstall Grep after installing PCRE, Grep will get linked against PCRE and this may cause problems during the boot process if /usr is a separate mount point. If you have /usr/lib on the same partition as /lib you can omit this option"
>>
>> as one further warning to solve the issue before rebooting.
>  Thinking about this a bit more, why was the old rebuilt grep not
> using libpcre.so, rather than libpcre.so.0 ?  I've never rebuilt
> grep after pcre is installed, so I don't know.

Sorry. I do not understand this question. That is why I kept thinking and did not reply yesterday.

But reading Andy's post I received today, perhaps the answer is that paco removed the library.

And replying to your post also received today, I agree in part that:

>  ... yet another example of why package managers are *evil* 

In part, because paco really facilitates my view of installed packages. However, I will modify the scrips to not uninstall previous versions of packages. In this respect, I many times used *make uninstall*, before using paco, what is really evil is uninstall, not paco. Perhaps, somewhere in the book, there could be a recommendation of not uninstall, in the lines of Markku Pesonen:

> When upgrading a working system, you should always
> keep the old version of a library installed, until all programs that
> depend on it are recompiled against the new one.

It may be I am wrong, but differently from you (citation following), I think there is a problem.

> I don't think there is a problem with the book.


>>> I always recommend booting to level 3 and using startx and not ?dm for 
>>> exactly this type of problem.
>> I used to do that for months (or even years?) until one day I read about security issues if not using a dm, and installed slim. I have spent about an hour now, trying to find it if it was on Arch or Gentoo, without success. As I do not have much security knowledge, I believed it.
>>
>> Also, I notice that most linux distros use one.
>>
>> Please, I would like advice on that, as life would be much easier without dm's.
>>
>  My memory of slim is that I eventually hated it :)  Perhaps because
> the text was too small, but I forget.  It would be interesting to see
> that 'security' report.  I used to use gdm for convenience (before it
> changed and stopped me seeing the results of the shutdown scripts -
> unpleasant when my development created an error in them), but the
> reason distros use dm's is that "users expect to boot to a graphical
> desktop".  AFAIK, there are no security reasons to prefer a
> graphical login - although, arguably, in an office with multiple
> users a tty login where xorg is not running will not load a
> screensaver when a machine is unattended.

What I disliked more about slim was the lack of poweroff/reboot (if I recall correctly). Thus, I replaced it by lxdm, which is ok, but had to do some gymnastics to get it working (PAM, Xsession, to name two).

Now I am in the route to removing lxdm, as I will discuss in the reply to Bruce.

Thanks very much for the attention, again. Much appreciated.

-- 
[]s,
Fernando



More information about the blfs-support mailing list