Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Installing APLX on Fedora Core 5

55 views
Skip to first unread message

brian.b.m...@lmco.com

unread,
Apr 25, 2006, 8:21:53 AM4/25/06
to
You will need to download the main APLX package
and also the upgrade to APLX 1.1.9. Note the installation
instructions for the upgrade on the web page for the
APLX downloads.

There are a couple of changes that you have to watch
out for when installing APLX on Fedora Core 5:

First, the font directory has changed. I edited the file
APLXLinux1.1/fonts/install_fonts.sh to add the new
directories, adding the two sections shown below
underneath similar sections that already existed in
that file:

...

# --- Fedora Core 5
if [ -z "$PCF_DIR" -a -d /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc ]; then
PCF_DIR=/usr/share/X11/fonts/misc
fi

...

# --- Fedora Core 5
if [ -z "$PT1_DIR" -a -d /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1 ]; then
PT1_DIR=/usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1
fi

...

and then installed APLX. I then applied the upgrade to 1.1.9.
After rebooting, I got:

# startaplx
aplxlinux: ../../../util-common/delphiuw.c:580: Assertion `!SavedRegs
|| (ProcRelOffs > PushRegsOffs)' failed.
/usr/local/bin/startaplx: line 43: 2608 Aborted
/usr/local/aplxpe/bin/aplxlinux

This was caused by a change to the security settings in the
new Fedora Core. There is a security program called exec-shield
that runs even if SELinux is disabled. The default setting was
changed to improve security, but this breaks a number of programs.
A typical symptom is a stack overflow message.

To fix this you have to edit /etc/sysctl.conf and add the statement
kernel.exec-shield = 9
(the default value, which can be displayed with the command
cat /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield
is 11).

Then APLX should start up properly. The first time you start it up,
it will ask for your registration key and then you will have to start
it again. It may be necessary to reboot to get the fonts to come
up properly.

--- Brian

Jos van Kan

unread,
Dec 25, 2022, 4:05:56 PM12/25/22
to
Thanks!. Is there also a workaround for systemd? It does not use exec-shield.
Regards, Jos
0 new messages