gcc 3.x compatibility package
Hi there, does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x. Greetings Jens Siebert
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:35:09PM +0100, Jens Siebert wrote:
Hi there,
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler?
g77 and C/C++ support is a different story because gfortran is not yet fully complete in it's language support. Thus you sometimes still need g77 to compile fully standard conformant Fortran77 code. If your code is C or C++ and does not build with the most recent version (but did with older releases) it is most likely a bug in your code and not a problem of the compiler. If SUSE (or any other vendor) started to ship compilers for every variant of broken code floating around in the world they would end up shipping all versions of gcc ever released or even those that were never released.
I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
So you either have to build a version yourself or better fix your code. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Jens Siebert wrote:
Hi there,
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
Hi there,
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
Hi, On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
The tone was right (delicious!), but maybe the loudness was not tuned to innocent people's ears. But it was tuned to the theme. FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL... Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
The tone was right (delicious!), but maybe the loudness was not tuned to innocent people's ears. But it was tuned to the theme.
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Many vendors e.g. oracle require apps to be rebuilt or relinked in place, and the build fails due to compiler changes - so telling the poor DBA to "FIX YOUR ERRORS" is most unhelpful I'm afraid - so this is an unacceptable answer for most real world scenarios. Joe
Hi, On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, J Sloan wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
The tone was right (delicious!), but maybe the loudness was not tuned to innocent people's ears. But it was tuned to the theme.
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Many vendors e.g. oracle require apps to be rebuilt or relinked in place, and the build fails due to compiler changes - so telling the poor DBA to "FIX YOUR ERRORS" is most unhelpful I'm afraid - so this is an unacceptable answer for most real world scenarios.
Yes, such cases may happen, and they already have happened. You remember gcc-old in SLES? You remember openmotif-libs-<something-very-old>? So, next step is: FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL... "I need this for an older program" is not enough. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, J Sloan wrote:
Many vendors e.g. oracle require apps to be rebuilt or relinked in place, and the build fails due to compiler changes - so telling the poor DBA to "FIX YOUR ERRORS" is most unhelpful I'm afraid - so this is an unacceptable answer for most real world scenarios.
Yes, such cases may happen, and they already have happened. You remember gcc-old in SLES? You remember openmotif-libs-<something-very-old>?
So, next step is:
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
"I need this for an older program" is not enough.
Oracle 10 enterprise manager - Error logs not available right now, but the DBA had to install an older version of gcc to get it built, as Oracle does not support gcc 4, and their support begins with "you must use gcc version x" (known as gcc-old in SLES) It's fine to push the envelope with new versions, but there must also be a sane fallback for stable production purposes. Joe
Hi, On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, J Sloan wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, J Sloan wrote:
Many vendors e.g. oracle require apps to be rebuilt or relinked in place, and the build fails due to compiler changes - so telling the poor DBA to "FIX YOUR ERRORS" is most unhelpful I'm afraid - so this is an unacceptable answer for most real world scenarios.
Yes, such cases may happen, and they already have happened. You remember gcc-old in SLES? You remember openmotif-libs-<something-very-old>?
So, next step is:
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
"I need this for an older program" is not enough.
Oracle 10 enterprise manager -
Error logs not available right now, but the DBA had to install an older version of gcc to get it built, as Oracle does not support gcc 4, and their support begins with "you must use gcc version x" (known as gcc-old in SLES)
It's fine to push the envelope with new versions, but there must also be a sane fallback for stable production purposes.
Oracle should be a theme within the SLES line only. And you see, there has been a solution for former cases. But THERE, not HERE. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, J Sloan wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, J Sloan wrote: ... Error logs not available right now, but the DBA had to install an older version of gcc to get it built, as Oracle does not support gcc 4, and
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote: their support begins with "you must use gcc version x" (known as gcc-old in SLES) ... Oracle should be a theme within the SLES line only. And you see, there has been a solution for former cases.
Indeed, you'd best run Oracle on SLES.
Now, one solution would be to compile GCC 3.x yourself, that's at least
how I do it to have Oracle on some development boxes.
It's quite easy to do actually. Just grab
mkdir -p ~/download/gcc
cd ~/download/gcc
wget \
http://ftp.belnet.be/mirrors/ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.3.6/gcc-core-3.3.6.ta...
tar xf gcc-core-3.3.6.tar.bz2
cd gcc-3.3.6
./configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-3.3.6
make
su -c "make install"
That's it.
Before you start Oracle's runInstall, make sure to put GCC 3.3.x in the
path, first:
export PATH=/opt/gcc-3.3.6/bin:$PATH
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gcc-3.3.6/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Note, if you're on a 64bit system:
...
./configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-3.3.6 --libdir=/opt/gcc-3.3.6/lib64
...
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gcc-3.3.6/lib64:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Pascal Bleser wrote:
Indeed, you'd best run Oracle on SLES.
True, SLES is the "safe" choice, and that's what my large SuSE customers are running - but I often do work for some smallish, cost-sensitive shops that are running SuSE Pro, and it works quite well for them. This idea that SuSE Pro is "only for hobbyists" is a new idea that Novell seems to be pushing - in the old days SuSE Pro was known as a stable, well designed, polished distro, which "just worked" out of the box.
Now, one solution would be to compile GCC 3.x yourself, that's at least how I do it to have Oracle on some development boxes.
It's quite easy to do actually. Just grab
mkdir -p ~/download/gcc cd ~/download/gcc wget \ http://ftp.belnet.be/mirrors/ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.3.6/gcc-core-3.3.6.ta... tar xf gcc-core-3.3.6.tar.bz2 cd gcc-3.3.6 ./configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-3.3.6 make su -c "make install"
That's it. Before you start Oracle's runInstall, make sure to put GCC 3.3.x in the path, first:
export PATH=/opt/gcc-3.3.6/bin:$PATH export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gcc-3.3.6/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Excellent, this makes perfect sense, I'll try it Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 J Sloan wrote:
Pascal Bleser wrote:
Indeed, you'd best run Oracle on SLES.
True, SLES is the "safe" choice, and that's what my large SuSE customers are running - but I often do work for some smallish, cost-sensitive shops that are running SuSE Pro, and it works quite well for them.
Uh... well.. compared to Oracle license fees, SLES is almost unnoticeable.
This idea that SuSE Pro is "only for hobbyists" is a new idea that Novell seems to be pushing - in the old days SuSE Pro was known as a stable, well designed, polished distro, which "just worked" out of the box.
No, I don't think Novell is pushing that "idea". Well, of course, they
prefer selling their enterprise products, which is very understandable.
But SUSE Linux is not "only for hobbyists". The point about using SLES
for Oracle is certification and support. I mean, if you don't need
those, then why would you run Oracle in the first place ?
Unless you have some terrabyte-sized data warehousing to do (which is
pretty much the only case where I would choose Oracle, and maybe RAC for
a high-availability-and-load-balancing-nightmare-scenario), you'll be
much better off with PostgreSQL or MySQL anyway. The latter are much
easier to install, administrate and are far lower on resources.
And don't tell me it's for the freeware edition of Oracle 10g... you
know that you don't even get to see bugs and patches (not even
mentioning downloading patches) without a support contract with Oracle ? ;)
But maybe I'm drifting off of the original thread topic... ;)
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Pascal Bleser wrote:
Uh... well.. compared to Oracle license fees, SLES is almost unnoticeable.
Indeed.
But SUSE Linux is not "only for hobbyists". The point about using SLES for Oracle is certification and support. I mean, if you don't need those, then why would you run Oracle in the first place ?
Oracle was just an example of one of the cases where it is not practical to expect an admin to "fix the code" - but yes, the small shops running SLP instead of SLES also tend to use mysql, not oracle... Joe
J Sloan
Pascal Bleser wrote:
Indeed, you'd best run Oracle on SLES.
True, SLES is the "safe" choice, and that's what my large SuSE customers are running - but I often do work for some smallish, cost-sensitive shops that are running SuSE Pro, and it works quite well for them.
This idea that SuSE Pro is "only for hobbyists" is a new idea that Novell seems to be pushing - in the old days SuSE Pro was known as a stable, well designed, polished distro, which "just worked" out of the box.
The idea that for Enterprise use, you should use our enterprise products is there since we first made an Enterprise product and called it SLES7. SUSE Linux should still be a stable, well designed, polished distro that works out of the box - but you're testing a beta right now;-). Oracle was never supported as part of SUSE Linux Professional, it might just have worked for some versions. AFAIK you will not get support from Oracle for anything that runs on SUSE Linux, since Oracle only certifies the enterprise products. I'm not sure which Oracle version will work with our next enterprise products and what needs to be done for them. You should also be able to grab the gcc-old package from an older distri and try installing and running it (not tested - note I have never tried Oracle installation), Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
SUSE Linux should still be a stable, well designed, polished distro that works out of the box - but you're testing a beta right now;-). Oracle was never supported as part of SUSE Linux Professional, it might just have worked for some versions.
AFAIK you will not get support from Oracle for anything that runs on SUSE Linux, since Oracle only certifies the enterprise products.
Of course - but sometimes test/development databases exist, which are rather useful, even if officially unsupported - and oracle is just an example, there is a lot of code out there in production environments, some open source, some not, some practical to fix, some not, which breaks with gcc 4.
I'm not sure which Oracle version will work with our next enterprise products and what needs to be done for them.
You should also be able to grab the gcc-old package from an older distri and try installing and running it (not tested - note I have never tried Oracle installation),
Good idea, I'll test out that approach as well - Joe
On 9 Mar 2006 at 14:31, J Sloan wrote: [...]
Oracle 10 enterprise manager -
Error logs not available right now, but the DBA had to install an older version of gcc to get it built, as Oracle does not support gcc 4, and their support begins with "you must use gcc version x" (known as gcc-old in SLES)
It's fine to push the envelope with new versions, but there must also be a sane fallback for stable production purposes.
But SLES9 doesn't have gcc4. Use SLES9 for stable production purposes then. Ulrich
Ulrich Windl wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 at 14:31, J Sloan wrote:
[...]
Oracle 10 enterprise manager -
Error logs not available right now, but the DBA had to install an older version of gcc to get it built, as Oracle does not support gcc 4, and their support begins with "you must use gcc version x" (known as gcc-old in SLES)
It's fine to push the envelope with new versions, but there must also be a sane fallback for stable production purposes.
But SLES9 doesn't have gcc4. Use SLES9 for stable production purposes then.
It won't build on SLES 9 either - unless the gcc-old package is installed. Joe
On 9 Mar 2006 at 13:32, J Sloan wrote: [...]
Many vendors e.g. oracle require apps to be rebuilt or relinked in place, and the build fails due to compiler changes - so telling the poor DBA to "FIX YOUR ERRORS" is most unhelpful I'm afraid - so this is an unacceptable answer for most real world scenarios.
...when using a version of Oracle that is officially supported on that platform? Ulrich
Ulrich Windl wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 at 13:32, J Sloan wrote:
[...]
Many vendors e.g. oracle require apps to be rebuilt or relinked in place, and the build fails due to compiler changes - so telling the poor DBA to "FIX YOUR ERRORS" is most unhelpful I'm afraid - so this is an unacceptable answer for most real world scenarios.
...when using a version of Oracle that is officially supported on that platform?
Suse 10? That's not so surprising, after all, I know of people running oracle on fedora, of all things - but that's beside the point, oracle is just one example. The fact is, there are many cases where a new compiler breaks things, and where "fixing the code" isn't a practical option. An optional legacy code friendly compiler is needed - I believe a previous poster in this thread ended up installing solaris to build a required app, since it couldn't be built with gcc 4. There are other legacy apps I know of that can't be built with gcc 4. I suppose we have the option, as was mentioned here, of simply building an older gcc for our own use - but it would nice nice if the vendor would do that sort of thing. Isn't that why we buy the boxed set every 6 months? Joe
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 12:44:40AM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
I suppose we have the option, as was mentioned here, of simply building an older gcc for our own use - but it would nice nice if the vendor would do that sort of thing. Isn't that why we buy the boxed set every 6 months?
It would be useful if you read the other mails of this thread before answering because in the very beginning I already mentioned the reason why this is not practical: "If SUSE (or any other vendor) started to ship compilers for every variant of broken code floating around in the world they would end up shipping all versions of gcc ever released or even those that were never released." So building yourself is the way to go if you don't want to fix the code. Alternatively unpacking a binary package from an older release should do as well. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (cross-posting to opensuse-packaging as the topic is on purpose) Robert Schiele wrote: ...
So building yourself is the way to go if you don't want to fix the code. Alternatively unpacking a binary package from an older release should do as well.
Apart from that, I'd be willing to provide gcc3 packages for SUSE Linux
in my repository (for C and C++) but... what would be the best place for
it, how to best handle those compat library packages (i.e. where to put
them to avoid conflicts) ?
Does anyone have some hints ?
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:17:53AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Apart from that, I'd be willing to provide gcc3 packages for SUSE Linux in my repository (for C and C++) but... what would be the best place for it, how to best handle those compat library packages (i.e. where to put them to avoid conflicts) ?
Does anyone have some hints ?
Any special directory will do. /opt/gcc33 (or whatever version you want to provide) would be appropriate. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Schiele wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:17:53AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Apart from that, I'd be willing to provide gcc3 packages for SUSE Linux in my repository (for C and C++) but... what would be the best place for it, how to best handle those compat library packages (i.e. where to put them to avoid conflicts) ?
Does anyone have some hints ?
Any special directory will do. /opt/gcc33 (or whatever version you want to provide) would be appropriate.
Yes, sure ;)
I meant to for the compat runtime libraries.
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:36:38AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
I meant to for the compat runtime libraries.
No nead to package them again. They are already in compat-libstdc++. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Robert Schiele wrote:
It would be useful if you read the other mails of this thread before answering because in the very beginning I already mentioned the reason why this is not practical:
"If SUSE (or any other vendor) started to ship compilers for every variant of broken code floating around in the world they would end up shipping all versions of gcc ever released or even those that were never released."
Of course, nobody is asking for "compilers for every variant of broken code", but please, code which has been compiling without any problems in our data center environment for nearly a decade on all linux variants and several other unix platforms, is now deemed broken because it won't build with gcc 4? In short, if there were simply an optional gcc-compat package (e.g. 3.3 or 2.95) it would make everybody happy - Joe
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
The tone was right (delicious!), but maybe the loudness was not tuned to innocent people's ears. But it was tuned to the theme.
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough... The code in question is no code which I have written (in this case I wouldn't ask such a question) but from SUN (the J2SE 1.4 sourcecode). I need to compile this for some research I'm currently doing at work. So I can assure you that hell will freeze over before I go and fix their bugs because I haven't all day for this task to complete. And no, I can't use a newer J2SE source distribution (J2SE 5 or 6) because version 1.4 is required. I hope this clears things up a little bit. Greetings Jens Siebert P.S.: FIX YOUR CODE/FIX YOUR ERRORS might be a cool Geek statement(tm) (like RTFM you know) but this should be the tone grownups communicate with each other. Regardless of the 'loudness' ;-) P.P.S.: Sorry, couldn't resist
Jens Siebert wrote: FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough... The code in question is no code which I have written (in this case I wouldn't ask such a question) but from SUN (the J2SE 1.4 sourcecode). I need to compile this for some research I'm currently doing at work.
Did you fill a bug report at SUN bugtracker then ?
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote: FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough... The code in question is no code which I have written (in this case I wouldn't ask such a question) but from SUN (the J2SE 1.4 sourcecode). I need to compile this for some research I'm currently doing at work.
Did you fill a bug report at SUN bugtracker then ?
<sarcasm> Wow! See how it works! Halleluja! ;-) </sarcasm> Well if you'd read the rest of my mail carefully you would have stumbled accross the sentence --snip-- So I can assure you that hell will freeze over before I go and fix their bugs because I haven't all day for this task to complete. --snap-- which implies also that I haven't all day to wait for SUN to fix their code in a 3 years old codebase. Supposedly they will tell me that I should use a compiler that is required by them which is indeed a gcc 3.2.2. This is from the JSE 6 (newest version) build instructions: --snip-- GCC Compiler A GNU gcc compiler version 3.2.2 is required or gcc 3.2.1-7 built with the latest binutils package, version 2.13. --snap-- Greetings Jens Siebert
On 9 Mar 2006 at 23:02, Jens Siebert wrote:
--snip-- So I can assure you that hell will freeze over before I go and fix their bugs because I haven't all day for this task to complete. --snap--
replace "I go and fix their bugs" with "we go and fix your bugs" Ulrich
Hi, On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
The tone was right (delicious!), but maybe the loudness was not tuned to innocent people's ears. But it was tuned to the theme.
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough... The code in question is no code which I have written (in this case I wouldn't ask such a question)
Surely. The usual scenario. What else...
but from SUN (the J2SE 1.4 sourcecode). I need to compile this for some research I'm currently doing at work. So I can assure you that hell will freeze over before I go and fix their bugs because I haven't all day for this task to complete. And no, I can't use a newer J2SE source distribution (J2SE 5 or 6) because version 1.4 is required. I hope this clears things up a little bit.
Why do you need to run the compiling step on a "new" environment?
P.S.: FIX YOUR CODE/FIX YOUR ERRORS might be a cool Geek statement(tm) (like RTFM you know) but this should be the tone grownups communicate with each other. Regardless of the 'loudness' ;-)
P.P.S.: Sorry, couldn't resist
It is OK. Why shouldn't you test your mental borders. ;-)) [Sorry too] ;-)) 10.x comes with java 1.5, so probably you are totally beneath the road. But who knows - FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL... F.e. I once had tried to compile wu-ftpd-2.4.2 under SuSE-Linux-8.2 (while it was already obsoleted), and - guess what - I got stuck with obscure compiler error messages. With my detailed error messages, the SuSE gcc experts did help to reach the goal. I bet they (in fact, he - Philipp) would not even have "clicked in" if he had not seen the exact compiler messages. So again (last time now, really): FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL... Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:
Jens Siebert wrote:
does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
FIX YOUR CODE.
Fix your tone.
The tone was right (delicious!), but maybe the loudness was not tuned to innocent people's ears. But it was tuned to the theme.
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough... The code in question is no code which I have written (in this case I wouldn't ask such a question)
Surely. The usual scenario. What else...
but from SUN (the J2SE 1.4 sourcecode). I need to compile this for some research I'm currently doing at work. So I can assure you that hell will freeze over before I go and fix their bugs because I haven't all day for this task to complete. And no, I can't use a newer J2SE source distribution (J2SE 5 or 6) because version 1.4 is required. I hope this clears things up a little bit.
Why do you need to run the compiling step on a "new" environment?
Because I'm in the process of adding an extension to this version (1.4 required) of the Java VM. Therefore I need to compile the code of the VM . Therefore I need a compiler... Shall I continue?
P.S.: FIX YOUR CODE/FIX YOUR ERRORS might be a cool Geek statement(tm) (like RTFM you know) but this should be the tone grownups communicate with each other. Regardless of the 'loudness' ;-)
P.P.S.: Sorry, couldn't resist
It is OK. Why shouldn't you test your mental borders. ;-)) [Sorry too] ;-))
10.x comes with java 1.5, so probably you are totally beneath the road.
But who knows -
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
F.e. I once had tried to compile wu-ftpd-2.4.2 under SuSE-Linux-8.2 (while it was already obsoleted), and - guess what - I got stuck with obscure compiler error messages. With my detailed error messages, the SuSE gcc experts did help to reach the goal. I bet they (in fact, he - Philipp) would not even have "clicked in" if he had not seen the exact compiler messages.
So again (last time now, really):
FIX YOUR ERRORS, or at least SHOW THEM IN DETAIL...
Want to know what I've done while going on with this senseless discussion? Fired up my workstation, screwed up an unneeded Windows-partition, installed Solaris 10 x86 + Sun Studio 11 compilers, put the J2SE code on the filesystem, compiled it, works, problem solved... Thanks for the "help" and good night! Greetings Jens Siebert
Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Want to know what I've done while going on with this senseless discussion?
Thou shalt. You have requested a feature here (you know - additional work from other people), talking about errors without exactly showing the errors. The usual penalty for that is 101% ignorance, so please feel good now or eat the big letters. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Want to know what I've done while going on with this senseless discussion?
Thou shalt.
You have requested a feature here (you know - additional work from other people), talking about errors without exactly showing the errors.
I requested WHAT? Doesn't anybody READ anymore? Read again please: --snip-- Hi there, does anybody know of a compatibility package of gcc version 3.x for Suse 10.x ? I've looked into the opensuse repositories but only found a compat-g77 package. Is there something similar for the C compiler? I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x. --snap-- Does this sound like a request to you? Do you read "I request a gcc 3.x package immediately" out of this? If yes, then read it again and again until you understand that this was a simple question which could have been answered by a simple "yes" or "no" or by simply ignoring it. Or by simply saying: "No, there isn't a package so you have to compile one for yourself". Or whatever! Details were totally uninteresting in this case. But it seems that some people need to bash around without reason on everything that possibly could come from a newbie because it sounds simple.
The usual penalty for that is 101% ignorance, so please feel good now or eat the big letters.
Yeah sure... Ignorance is bliss...
Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
You have requested a feature here (you know - additional work from other people), talking about errors without exactly showing the errors.
I requested WHAT? Doesn't anybody READ anymore? Read again please:
Yes. But this time: just to fool you, not to guide you.
I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
Does this sound like a request to you?
What else?
Do you read "I request a gcc 3.x package immediately" out of this?
Not "immediately", but "request".
a simple question
OK. So you got a complex answer to a so-called "simple" question which you had wanted to better ignore. Sorry that i wasted my time...
Details were totally uninteresting in this case. But it seems that some people need to bash around without reason on everything that possibly could come from a newbie because it sounds simple.
Xou seem to be a much more crazy fool that I am under my cover. Do you like to get the address of my default psychiatrist? I won't give it to you; it is my wife & family.
The usual penalty for that is 101% ignorance, so please feel good now or eat the big letters.
Yeah sure... Ignorance is bliss...
You simply should have obeyed some of the big letters, and nobody would have shouted you being ignorant. But with this extent and this stupid reaction, take this thread as closed. You can earn the chance again to get personal answers from me if you re-qualify to ask questions. But I bet you do not understand... Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jens Siebert wrote:
You have requested a feature here (you know - additional work from other people), talking about errors without exactly showing the errors.
I requested WHAT? Doesn't anybody READ anymore? Read again please:
Yes. But this time: just to fool you, not to guide you.
I need this for an older program which doesn't compile with gcc 4.x.
Does this sound like a request to you?
What else?
Do you read "I request a gcc 3.x package immediately" out of this?
Not "immediately", but "request".
a simple question
OK. So you got a complex answer to a so-called "simple" question which you had wanted to better ignore.
Not complex, totally unnecessary... Simple and helpful answer would have sufficed...
Sorry that i wasted my time...
Details were totally uninteresting in this case. But it seems that some people need to bash around without reason on everything that possibly could come from a newbie because it sounds simple.
Xou seem to be a much more crazy fool that I am under my cover. Do you like to get the address of my default psychiatrist? I won't give it to you; it is my wife & family.
The usual penalty for that is 101% ignorance, so please feel good now or eat the big letters.
Yeah sure... Ignorance is bliss...
You simply should have obeyed some of the big letters, and nobody would have shouted you being ignorant.
But with this extent and this stupid reaction, take this thread as closed.
Yup, I'll do. Because it leads to nowhere...
You can earn the chance again to get personal answers from me if you re-qualify to ask questions.
I really don't know if I want that...
But I bet you do not understand...
Greetings Jens Siebert
On 10 Mar 2006 at 0:34, Jens Siebert wrote:
Want to know what I've done while going on with this senseless discussion? Fired up my workstation, screwed up an unneeded Windows-partition, installed Solaris 10 x86 + Sun Studio 11 compilers, put the J2SE code on the filesystem, compiled it, works, problem solved... Thanks for the "help" and good night!
As the best platform to run microsoft word most likely is MS-Windows, run Java on Solaris and be happy. Regards, Ulrich
participants (8)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Cristian Rodriguez -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
J Sloan -
Jens Siebert -
Pascal Bleser -
Robert Schiele -
Ulrich Windl