[Inx] Buildinx failure on Ubuntu 9.10

[Peter Garrett]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:46:12 -0700
Warren Smith <literalsystems at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> It's great to have access to the buildinx script. Unfortunately there
> must be something awry with something somewhere. How's that for
> feedback? 

Very illuminating ;-)

> Let me get more specific. I have an Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic
> running updated and fresh specifically to build INX on. I have
> followed the instructions found on the buildinx.html help page. But
> what I end up with after about 6 fresh trial runs of the script is an
> iso that boots only to stop at a BusyBox prompt (like so):
> (initramfs)_

Odd indeed, since buildinx is what I use myself to build all versions
of INX. The only variable I can see here that might be a problem is
that you are building on 9.10 (Karmic) whereas I am building on 8.04
(Hardy). Why this should make a difference I'm not sure, since
essentially the chroot created should be identical, unless you changed
the script in an attempt to build a "Karmic" based INX, which almost
certainly would fail.

One possibility is that the version of squashfs (or something else
crucial) in Karmic is different and that this is causing issues, but
that is a guess. The chroot created from building INX should be a
"hardy" chroot, so if you built from *within* that chroot, the script
should install hardy versions of all the tools used in the script, thus
removing any problems from version mismatches and so on. I realise this
is a bit of an odd way to try debugging the issue, but it *might*
work...

What you would do is 

sudo chroot /path/to/your/buildinx_chroot

Then use buildinx from *within* that chroot. This means simply copying
'buildinx' into the chroot beforehand, then running it from within the
inx chroot created by buildinx, if you follow me...

When I was originally making INX in 2007 and early 2008, I found that
for example a "feisty" 7.04 version would build on Feisty, but not on
"gutsy", a "gutsy" version wouldn't build on anything, a hardy version
would build on Feisty but not on Gutsy, and so on... It really was both
annoying and impossible (for me) to debug, so I ended up just using what
"worked".

> I have chosen the defaults all the way and attempted making a clone of
> INX to no avail. I have also updated the buildinx script to reflect
> the latest
> export DEBOOTSTRAP_LATEST=1.0.20 (tried both new and 1.0.12 default
> with matching actual installed versions)

For building a "hardy inx" I don't think the newer debootstrap is
needed, but I doubt that it matters since the newer version recognises
hardy as an option.
 
> I can't think of anything that I might be doing out of the ordinary. I
> have even waited for a different phase of the moon to build under (but
> that was only my neighbour's suggestion). I'd be glad for any insights
> or sleuthing you might have time for.

You forgot to sacrifice a chicken and a goat at the full moon while
chanting the correct magic words. INX never builds unless you do that!

If you are unsure about how to use the chroot to build a hardy version,
feel free to ask for more information.

By the way, you might want to change your subject line to something
vaguely informative when answering a "digest" - although that's not a
big deal. :-)


Peter

-- 
"INX Is Not X" Live CD based on Ubuntu 8.04 : http://inx.maincontent.net
Screenshots slideshow: http://inx.maincontent.net/album/1.png.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.inx.maincontent.net/pipermail/inx-inx.maincontent.net/attachments/20100125/57e38a25/attachment-0002.pgp>