Page 2 of 3
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 8. Jul 2012, 22:55
by mimosa
@ gapan
There's a first time for everything, including inventing the wheel. I'll give that a try
@ Tim CowChip
No worries, I only posted that rather pedantic correction for the record (in case anyone else ever tries this). However it now looks as though the solution is three commands:
Code: Select all
wget everything that belongs to that package
fakeroot slkbuild -X
installpkg rat_foo_bar.txz
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 9. Jul 2012, 02:35
by mimosa
Much to my frustration, it still doesn't work. I can only imagine, because of some trace of my previous manual attempts - but surely installing the package overwrote them?
The actual installation appeared to go smoothly. FWIW:
Code: Select all
mimosa[~]$ md5sum ratemp/rat*txz
0b2662fc1104037dfa4e7577741bf9e2 ratemp/ratpoison-20110611-i486-2gv.txz
When I say it doesn't work - the session ends pronto and there is a message accordingly.
EDIT
To complete the picture, Gslapt wants to downgrade the package. I can exclude it of course, but is this the best way? I installed with installpkg.
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 9. Jul 2012, 06:54
by gapan
mimosa wrote:Much to my frustration, it still doesn't work. I can only imagine, because of some trace of my previous manual attempts - but surely installing the package overwrote them?
Unless you removed everything that you installed manually first, ofcourse the package installation didn't overwrite everything. That's the problem with installing things manually. They tend to leave stuff behind.
mimosa wrote:To complete the picture, Gslapt wants to downgrade the package. I can exclude it of course, but is this the best way? I installed with installpkg.
Yes, that's the best way.
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 9. Jul 2012, 12:11
by mimosa
The error is "permission denied" for xinitrc.ratpoison, here:
Code: Select all
mimosa[~]$ ls -l /etc/X11/xinit/
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 321 Mar 16 2003 README.Xmodmap
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Oct 7 2010 xinitrc -> xinitrc.kde
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 645 Jul 8 21:10 xinitrc.ratpoison
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 28 Oct 8 2010 xinitrc.xfce -> ../../xfce/xdg/xfce4/xinitrc
I definitely removed this one, uninstalled the package, reinstalled (this time using pkgtool): the permissions are the same. The .desktop file was removed from /usr/share/xsessions. I even tried installing and uninstalling the 13.1 ratpoison. No dice.
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 9. Jul 2012, 12:14
by gapan
Is that file executable?
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 9. Jul 2012, 12:15
by mimosa
No.
EDIT
Problem solved. But that should never have happened!
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 9. Jul 2012, 23:01
by Shador
mimosa wrote:Problem solved. But that should never have happened!
If a problem should stay unsolved try something like the Travelling Salesman problem or some paradoxon e.g.: You as a Salix user claim that all Salix users are lying. Truth or lie?
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 10. Jul 2012, 01:22
by mimosa
yes but a normal install should have made that file executable
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 10. Jul 2012, 07:52
by gapan
Well, you're right mimosa, it's because of a "flaw" in my SLKBUILD. It just copies over the xinitrc file. It just so happens that on my PC the xinitrc file is already set as executable, so it's copied with that bit already set. But when you downloaded the xinitrc file, you didn't set the executable flag before running the SLKBUILD (and you had no reason to). The official 13.37 ratpoison packages are OK, because I build them on my PC, so they did have that set already. I admit that there should be a line that sets the executable flag on the xinitrc file and it's an oversight, but the official packages are fine anyway, so it's a very small one.
Re: ratpoison in 13.1
Posted: 10. Jul 2012, 11:34
by mimosa
Do you mean the xinitrc.ratpoison in /etc/X11/xinit? Because I'm pretty sure I deleted that before reinstalling ...
Oh I think I get it: I didn't *rebuild the package*, and when I first built it, it used that file (the one I had previously downloaded) rather than its own ...
Is that right?
EDIT
Also it seems reasonable to take the view that if I was downloading everything manually [shudder] I should have made sure that file was executable anyway
