From: "Lewis G Rosenthal" Received: from [72.86.41.184] (account lgrosenthal@2rosenthals.com HELO [192.168.201.141]) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.10) with ESMTPSA id 1764395 for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 22:54:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [eCS-ISP] links in the ticket To: eCS ISP Mailing List References: Organization: Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC Message-ID: <60614F8E.3090903@2rosenthals.com> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 22:54:54 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; Warp 4.5; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0 SeaMonkey/2.35 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, again... (Reply 1 of 2): On 03/28/21 08:59 pm, Steven Levine wrote: > In , on 03/28/21 > at 09:52 PM, "Lewis G Rosenthal" said: > > Hi there, > >> attaching something would be prudent. (Of course, if anyone thinks this >> list is "ridiculous," he is welcome to unsubscribe instead of reporting >> a problem; that's fine, too. This list is free - as in beer *and* as in >> speech.) > My thoughts exactly, but I preferred to let the moderator state this. If > this were a SCOUG list, I would said much the same thing. :-) > :-) >> One would think, unless there was a remnant of a YUM/RPM base on the >> system and we didn't recognize it as being in need of a bootstrap. > I was trying to guess how Massimo got himself in to this state and now I > may have an idea how he fooled ANPM into not installing the bootstrap. > > You probably skipped some of the more fun parts of this thread and others, > so... > Yes, I was only glancing at messages here and there. The "ridiculous" comment stuck in my head, though, prompting my entry. > Massimo started out with an eCS 2.2b system and was manually copying items > from the \usr tree on his ArcaOS install to the \usr tree on the eCS 2.2b > system. This is rarely a good practice. In fact, unless manually copying to \usr\local - and keeping clear and contemporaneous notes as to what has been copied (and why) - sullying \usr is just a bad idea. This is a *managed* tree, as we know. > After having a sufficient number of problems attempting to this > without sufficient understanding of how to ensure the prerequisites are > also installed, he decided to install ANPM. For reasons known only to > Massimo, he decided to install 1.04, although I am not sure if 1.06 would > have avoided any of his subsequent issues. He did finally install 1.06, > but I can't say what, if any, of his specific problems this fixed. > I doubt that 1.0.6 would have helped in such a situation. > He probably had manually installed rpm and yum to his \usr tree and that's > probably suffcient to fool ANPM into thinking it did not need to install > the bootstrap. I was wondering how he managed to end up with platform > i386 and this would explain it. Without the bootstrap there will > initially be no platform file and ANPM will default to i386. > Well, to be precise, with no platform file, yum will default to i386, and ANPM will just call yum to do its thing. However, ANPM 1.0.6 does make it relatively easy (point & click) to set a reasonable base platform. I don't recall offhand whether we introduced that with 1.0.4 or something later. Of course, one would have to know that the platform file was missing and that i386 was non-optimal, having been essentially orphaned in 2017 or so, in favor of i686. > Of course, I am doing some educated guessing based on Massimo's inexact > statements of what failed when he attempted certain actions. We will > probably never know for sure. > :-) > FWIW, the bootstrap required check could be a bit more robust. The > current code only checks for the existance of rpm.exe and yum.exe, but the > test will pass even if the executables cannot run. > More on this in my next reply. -- Lewis ------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA, CLP, CLE, CWTS, EA Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC www.2rosenthals.com visit my IT blog www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress -------------------------------------------------------------