Re: [SLE] Final Successful Story: Can't Compile (Link) 'xfstt'
* Howard Arons (hlarons@ComCAT.COM) [20000214 20:45]:
However, I DO have a directory /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.66, which contains just a few items:
2304771 Nov 6 11:14 cc1plus 29 Jan 28 09:29 libg++.a -> ../../../libg++-libc6.1-1.a.2 30 Jan 28 09:29 libg++.so -> ../../../libg++-libc6.1-1.so.2 32 Jan 28 09:29 libstdc++.a -> ../../../libstdc++-libc6.1-1.a.2 33 Jan 28 09:29 libstdc++.so -> ../../../libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2
Which means you have packages gpplib installed, that's useless without egcs.
If you're using a 2.2.X kernel, delete packages gcc and gccfront and maybe reinstall egcs.
If I understand your suggestion, using the egcs package instead of gcc/gccfront will allow such compiles to work without all this fooling around. I'd like to believe that, and I'm going to try it (after deleting gccfront of course).
gcc is gcc 2.7.2.3 and gccfront the driver (/usr/bin/gcc). As I wrote, these are only needed for compiling 2.0.X kernels. If you don't intend to do that, you may safely delete both packages. BTW, for programs written in C++, you need packages gpp and gpplib and gpp *requires* egcs to be installed.
I wonder if you'd care to comment on one last item: During my 6.3 install, I originally installed egcs. Later I changed my mind and used YaST to delete egcs and install gcc and gccfront. I wonder if YaST's uninstall operation was faulty, leaving some files/dirs around that perhaps shouldn't exist, and causing the problems I've described.
Well, maybe a bit. As It seems that it left the /usr/bin/gcc from egcs in place (this would account for the 'egcs 2.92' version). This frontend of cause won't pass the correct paths to the C runtime objects (crt*.o) and libgcc.a to the programs it calls.
Likewise, add -L directives for the directories that contain libm.a and libc.a to take no chances.
Also wrong. If not linking statically (i.e. -static), ld searches for libc.so and libm.so in the order: specified via -L->/usr/lib->/usr/local/lib.
Bear in mind that it is not the *.so libraries that are not found, it is the library archives (*.a), as specified by the -l arguments to the linker.
Not quite, if you pass a library name via -l and you don't specify static linking, it will first search for the dynamic library (lib.so) and only if it doesn't find that it will use the static lib.
My interest now is in learning whether the problem is mine, xfstt's or SuSE's.
Well, it's a mix of yours and SuSE's, but mostly yours. In 6.4, this won't happen, as we're switching to gcc 2.95.2. So such problems with compiler versions should vanish.
As for 'gcc --print-search-paths', it's not in the man or info pages that I could find, so I have no idea what it does.
Do you have the info files for gcc installed? It's a seperate package (gccinfo.rpm from series doc). This option will make gcc print out the directories it searches for programs and files it needs and also passes to programs it calls. So calling gcc like this would show if it searches in the right places.
BTW, you copied your note to suse-linux, not to suse-linux-e where I posted.
Yeah, I allready noticed that :) This is the result of having two very
similiar aliases for those lists and not really checking the header before
sending the mail.
Philipp
--
Philipp Thomas
Philipp Thomas wrote:
gcc is gcc 2.7.2.3 and gccfront the driver (/usr/bin/gcc). As I wrote, these are only needed for compiling 2.0.X kernels. If you don't intend to do that, you may safely delete both packages. BTW, for programs written in C++, you need packages gpp and gpplib and gpp *requires* egcs to be installed.
Do you happen to know if gcc and/or gccfront are necessary in order to build the latest Emacs release from Gnu sources? It would be very useful if the next SuSE manual explained the distinctions among the various gcc-related compilers and libraries. Questions about what compilers and libraries to use come up all the time and are one of the most troublesome aspects of installing Linux software. Paul Abrahams -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
* Paul W. Abrahams (abrahams@valinet.com) [20000215 18:46]:
Do you happen to know if gcc and/or gccfront are necessary in order to build the latest Emacs release from Gnu sources?
I don't know, as I won't ever use emacs, so I've as yet had no reason to compile it.
It would be very useful if the next SuSE manual explained the distinctions among the various gcc-related compilers and libraries.
I'm afraid that's out of the reach for the manual. But it will get easier with 6.4. People who compile the code themselves are expected to know enough to deal with the problems that may arise.
Questions about what compilers and libraries to use come up all the time and are one of the most troublesome aspects of installing Linux software.
Most people don't need the compiler and associated tools, as they use the
binary packages. One of the reasons is, that they don't get free support
from us for self compiled programs or kernels (simply because the list of
possible configurations is nearly indefinite).
As I stated above, those that compile programs themself are expected to know
enough to handle possible problems and/or failures.
Philipp
--
Philipp Thomas
Philipp Thomas wrote:
* Paul W. Abrahams (abrahams@valinet.com) [20000215 18:46]:
Do you happen to know if gcc and/or gccfront are necessary in order to build the latest Emacs release from Gnu sources?
I don't know, as I won't ever use emacs, so I've as yet had no reason to compile it.
It would be very useful if the next SuSE manual explained the distinctions among the various gcc-related compilers and libraries.
I'm afraid that's out of the reach for the manual. But it will get easier with 6.4. People who compile the code themselves are expected to know enough to deal with the problems that may arise.
Questions about what compilers and libraries to use come up all the time and are one of the most troublesome aspects of installing Linux software.
Most people don't need the compiler and associated tools, as they use the binary packages. One of the reasons is, that they don't get free support from us for self compiled programs or kernels (simply because the list of possible configurations is nearly indefinite).
As I stated above, those that compile programs themself are expected to know enough to handle possible problems and/or failures.
That might be a reasonable assumption if the SuSE distribution were all-inclusive, but it isn't and there's no hope that it ever will be. Just look at how many references there are in threads in this group to programs that one can pick up from the Net or from other sources. Most Linux programs are distributed in source form (the ones that come with SuSE aside), and users are expected to be able to compile those programs themselves. I agree that we can't expect SuSE to provide support for software that SuSE hasn't distributed. But a couple of pages in the manual on dealing with external software, with whatever disclaimers you might want to attach, would be exceedingly useful. Just look at how many posts there are about problems that people have as the result of having the wrong version of a compiler or library installed. Paul Abrahams -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Philipp Thomas wrote:
As I stated above, those that compile programs themself are expected to know enough to handle possible problems and/or failures.
That might be a reasonable assumption if the SuSE distribution were all-inclusive, but it isn't and there's no hope that it ever will be. Just look at how many references there are in threads in this group to programs that one can pick up from the Net or from other sources. Most Linux programs are distributed in source form (the ones that come with SuSE aside), and users are expected to be able to compile those programs themselves.
I agree that we can't expect SuSE to provide support for software that SuSE hasn't distributed. But a couple of pages in the manual on dealing with external software, with whatever disclaimers you might want to attach, would be exceedingly useful. Just look at how many posts there are about problems that people have as the result of having the wrong version of a compiler or library installed.
You're just opening a huge can of worms. A few extra pages are not going to give the subject enough attention and no distro can possibly cover everything in their manual anyway. A few pages here, a few pages there, and soon the only thing the folks at SuSE or any other distribution are doing is writing the manual. All that I expect from a distro is that I can install the software that comes with the distro and my system will run. Once I start downloading source or binaries from other places I am not going to bother the distro folks. And that goes for any distro. Greg -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Hi, On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Greg Thomas wrote:
You're just opening a huge can of worms. A few extra pages are not going to give the subject enough attention and no distro can possibly cover everything in their manual anyway. A few pages here, a few pages there, and soon the only thing the folks at SuSE or any other distribution are doing is writing the manual.
Well, there will be a special "SuSE package HOWTO", describing how to properly create packages for SuSE Linux. This will also be a good reference for compiling packages. However, this is still in a very premature state and will unfortunately take some more time before we will release it.
All that I expect from a distro is that I can install the software that comes with the distro and my system will run. Once I start downloading source or binaries from other places I am not going to bother the distro folks. And that goes for any distro.
Agreed, at least for the binary part. In most cases, problems when compiling sources arise from missing libraries. But in general I never had a serious problem compiling programs on SuSE Linux. Bye, LenZ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lenz Grimmer SuSE GmbH mailto:grimmer@suse.de Schanzaeckerstr. 10 http://www.suse.de/~grimmer 90443 Nuernberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Lenz Grimmer wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Greg Thomas wrote:
You're just opening a huge can of worms. A few extra pages are not going to give the subject enough attention and no distro can possibly cover everything in their manual anyway. A few pages here, a few pages there, and soon the only thing the folks at SuSE or any other distribution are doing is writing the manual.
Well, there will be a special "SuSE package HOWTO", describing how to properly create packages for SuSE Linux. This will also be a good reference for compiling packages. However, this is still in a very premature state and will unfortunately take some more time before we will release it.
Just as you've asked for feedback on hwinfo, how about posting a preliminary version of that HowTo so that people here can make suggestions for improving it? What's to lose? Paul Abrahams -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Hi, On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Just as you've asked for feedback on hwinfo, how about posting a preliminary version of that HowTo so that people here can make suggestions for improving it? What's to lose?
Not much I assume. But this document is far away from being helpful right now. We will work on it as soon as the next release is out of the door. Thanks for your patience :) Bye, LenZ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lenz Grimmer SuSE GmbH mailto:grimmer@suse.de Schanzaeckerstr. 10 http://www.suse.de/~grimmer 90443 Nuernberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Lenz Grimmer wrote:
As a sidenote to this, I found that a few chapters "dissappeared" from the SuSE manual (speaking of emulators and 6.2), but new important stuff appeared. Is there a chance to dedicate a chapter in each release to a specific subject (if sensible or desired) and keep the other older articles (unchanged) on CD? I gave my old distros away and now I regret... (but I knew someone who has still a collection from 4.41 to 6.3) Juergen
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Greg Thomas wrote:
You're just opening a huge can of worms. A few extra pages are not going to give the subject enough attention and no distro can possibly cover everything in their manual anyway. A few pages here, a few pages there, and soon the only thing the folks at SuSE or any other distribution are doing is writing the manual.
Well, there will be a special "SuSE package HOWTO", describing how to properly create packages for SuSE Linux. This will also be a good reference for compiling packages. However, this is still in a very premature state and will unfortunately take some more time before we will release it.
All that I expect from a distro is that I can install the software that comes with the distro and my system will run. Once I start downloading source or binaries from other places I am not going to bother the distro folks. And that goes for any distro.
Agreed, at least for the binary part. In most cases, problems when compiling sources arise from missing libraries. But in general I never had a serious problem compiling programs on SuSE Linux.
Bye, LenZ
-- =========================================== __ _ Juergen Braukmann juergen.braukmann@gmx.de| -o)/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ Tel: 0201-743648 dk4jb@db0qs.#nrw.deu.eu | /\\ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / ===========================================_\_v __/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Exactly, Greg... I've tried several distros and it is not uncommon using either an rpm or a tarball to run into missing dependencies. The proper course is to locate those required files (http://www.google.com is an excellent search engine), install them and then recompile. Also, it is clearly stated in the YaST help when one can install gccfront and when one shouldn't. JLK Greg Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Philipp Thomas wrote:
As I stated above, those that compile programs themself are expected to know enough to handle possible problems and/or failures.
That might be a reasonable assumption if the SuSE distribution were all-inclusive, but it isn't and there's no hope that it ever will be. Just look at how many references there are in threads in this group to programs that one can pick up from the Net or from other sources. Most Linux programs are distributed in source form (the ones that come with SuSE aside), and users are expected to be able to compile those programs themselves.
I agree that we can't expect SuSE to provide support for software that SuSE hasn't distributed. But a couple of pages in the manual on dealing with external software, with whatever disclaimers you might want to attach, would be exceedingly useful. Just look at how many posts there are about problems that people have as the result of having the wrong version of a compiler or library installed.
You're just opening a huge can of worms. A few extra pages are not going to give the subject enough attention and no distro can possibly cover everything in their manual anyway. A few pages here, a few pages there, and soon the only thing the folks at SuSE or any other distribution are doing is writing the manual.
All that I expect from a distro is that I can install the software that comes with the distro and my system will run. Once I start downloading source or binaries from other places I am not going to bother the distro folks. And that goes for any distro.
Greg
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
On Feb 16, 2000, Jerry L Kreps wrote: ...
Also, it is clearly stated in the YaST help when one can install gccfront and when one shouldn't.
Well, since I'm the one who kicked off this convoluted thread with a compile question, and who subsequently learned--courtesy of Philipp Thomas at suse.de--that part of my problem lay in installing the "wrong" compiler, I must disagree with you there. YaST's info screens are not clear on the choice of compilers, to my way of thinking. ---------- Quoted from YaST info screens (F2) ------------- Package gcc -- The GNU C compiler and support files NOTE: Be sure to install at least the following packages besides this one, or you won't be able to compile: binutils, include, libc, and the third part of the kernel source. (the include files) Package gccfront -- frontend for gcc-2.7.2.x This is the part of gcc-2.7.2.x that is located in /usr/bin. It has been split off to allow coexisting install of egcs and gcc. To use gcc-2.7.2.x as default compiler, please deinstall egcs and install this package (gccfront). Package egcs -- the egcs-compiler This is the present state of the egcs-compiler-development. Unfortunately it is not advisable to compile a 2.0.x kernel with this compiler yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------- All this tells me is that I shouldn't use egcs for 2.0.x kernels. It also conveniently tells me what other packages I need to compile with gcc, and how to use gcc as the default compiler. The implication is clear that gcc is a perfectly acceptable compiler. Only with the benefit of hindsight and Mr. Thomas' observations do I NOW know that this isn't quite the case. Of course, after those comments from Paul Abrahams about X not reading his .Xdefaults file after deleting gcc, and Phillp's acknowledgement that a 'ln -s /lib/cpp /usr/bin/cpp' would be needed, I'm still not perfectly confident that a switch from gcc to egcs will be a pain-free visit to YaST. Howard Arons -- Powered by SuSE Linux 6.3 -- Kernel 2.2.13 Communications by Mutt 1.0i -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Philipp Thomas wrote:
* Howard Arons (hlarons@ComCAT.COM) [20000214 20:45]:
If you're using a 2.2.X kernel, delete packages gcc and gccfront and maybe reinstall egcs.
If I understand your suggestion, using the egcs package instead of gcc/gccfront will allow such compiles to work without all this fooling around. I'd like to believe that, and I'm going to try it (after deleting gccfront of course).
gcc is gcc 2.7.2.3 and gccfront the driver (/usr/bin/gcc). As I wrote, these are only needed for compiling 2.0.X kernels. If you don't intend to do that, you may safely delete both packages. BTW, for programs written in C++, you need packages gpp and gpplib and gpp *requires* egcs to be installed.
Beware! I took the suggestion and removed gcc and gccfront from my system. I then discovered that X wasn't reading my .Xdefaults file, so all my customizations were lost. Further investigation showed that xrdb was looking for lib/cpp and not finding it. Restoring gcc and gccfront (both were needed) fixed the problem. Paul Abrahams -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
* Paul W. Abrahams (abrahams@valinet.com) [20000216 04:45]:
Beware! I took the suggestion and removed gcc and gccfront from my system. I then discovered that X wasn't reading my .Xdefaults file, so all my customizations were lost. Further investigation showed that xrdb was looking for lib/cpp and not finding it. Restoring gcc and gccfront (both were needed) fixed the problem.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the X-programs. But you can still safely delete gcc
and gccfront, reinstall egcs and do an 'ln -s /lib/cpp /usr/bin/cpp' and it
will work again.
The gcc 2.95.2, which we'll use on 6.4 will do away with the the symlink in
/usr/bin (it's itself a symlink to /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/cpp) and
replace it with a binary cpp. But the symlink /lib/cpp->/usr/bin/cpp will
still work.
Philipp
--
Philipp Thomas
participants (7)
-
abrahams＠valinet.com -
ethant＠earthlink.net -
grimmer＠suse.de -
hlarons＠ComCAT.COM -
JerryKreps＠alltel.net -
juergen.braukmann＠ruhr-west.de -
pthomas＠suse.de