Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
Pages: (15) </ 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: easier way to compile stuff for DSL, chroot + debootstrap< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
mikshaw Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004
Posted: June 30 2007,15:50 QUOTE

Before reading this, please be aware that I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but simply that there are better alternatives, in my opinion.
Quote
DSL is great but has a drawback : it s a modified debian. Some debian package won't install through apt-get because DSL has not the proper debian dependency structure. This make compile stuff for DSL a real problem. There are often missing libs you can't add because of dependencies issues.

I don't consider the inability to install debian packages a drawback, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. Compiling software, however, has little to do with your package management system, and depending on libs that are provided by such a method is actually less reliable, when compiling new software, than having no package management at all.
I used to disagree with this when others told me the same thing, because I hadn't had any trouble. Over the years, though, I saw increasing problems with mixing a binary package manager with source on the same system, and today I try to avoid package managers as much as possible.

The "missing libs you can't add" problem is an inadequacy of package management (and by the fact that DSL is increasingly incompatible with Debian). These libs are intended to be used with binary programs obtained from the same repositories as the libs, and not necessarily sufficient for compiling programs. You can compile the necessary libraries you need if binary versions are incompatible with your desired application.

Relying on another distribution, such as Debian proper, for compiling applications for DSL will probably work ok in most cases, but anytime you do this you run the risk of building programs that are incompatible with DSL if your build system does not have the same or similar versions of libs and headers that were used to build the fundamental parts of DSL. I used to build myDSL packages on an old Suse box, and most worked ok in DSL. However, newer distributions have newer libs and headers (and kernels), many of which create binaries that don't work in DSL without having to include redundant libraries. Because of this, it's my belief that using DSL itself to compile programs intended for DSL is usually going to be more reliable than using Debian.


--------------
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
WDef Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 798
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: June 30 2007,17:52 QUOTE

I don't know, having a full woody development environment available in this or the standard way for compiling from source might come in handy.

There are some things that don't seem to compile on dsl no matter what you do .. determining what's missing is not always easy unless ./configure screams it at you or the compile bombs out at something obvious.  It can be very trying.

I recall for eg that gtk-gnutella compiled on woody, but not on dsl.

Which version of SuSE were you using to compile?  I seem to recall that Slackware10 had a 2.4.26 kernel for a while.

The critical thing is the glibc version.  If that's newer than dsl's, then there are problems on dsl with the compiled binaries.
Back to top
Profile PM 
clivesay Offline





Group: Guests
Posts: 935
Joined: Dec. 2003
Posted: July 01 2007,03:41 QUOTE

I'm interested to see what RS has up his sleeve for 4.0. He's hinted that he's ready to move on. He's good at surprising people with innovative ideas so I'll try to be patient and see what he has up his sleeve. Maybe whatever it is, can help with the burden of compiling apps against DSL. If I could get some more up to date apps running in DSL it would sure tweak my interests again.
Back to top
Profile PM MSN YIM 
Juanito Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: July 01 2007,05:18 QUOTE

One issue I came upon whilst messing around with the debootstrap woody install is that linux-kernel-headers does not exist in woody - there are kernel-headers packages but the most up to date is 2.4.20.

The Debian site does not list any dependencies for the linux-kernel-headers package in oldstable, but when I try to install it with apt-get, it prompts to update libc6 and a couple of other packages - unless I'm missing something, this sort of negates the idea of the debootstrap in the first place?
Back to top
Profile PM 
WDef Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 798
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: July 01 2007,10:16 QUOTE

Quote
If I could get some more up to date apps running in DSL it would sure tweak my interests again.


Good to see you're still out there Clivesay!

What apps are you particularly desirous of obtaining on dsl, so to speak?
Back to top
Profile PM 
73 replies since June 18 2007,19:08 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (15) </ 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >/
reply to topic new topic new poll
Quick Reply: easier way to compile stuff for DSL

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code