From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 12 01:44:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F6D16A41F; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:44:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9CD43D45; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:44:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0C1i13b029826; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:44:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <43C5B463.5020505@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:44:03 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051230 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruslan Ermilov References: <20060111073859.457C37302F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20060111090039.N760@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <200601110853.19622.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060111150808.P760@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20060111142302.GA34661@ip.net.ua> <20060111142622.GB34661@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20060111142622.GB34661@ip.net.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, Harti Brandt , Poul-Henning Kamp , Peter Wemm , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:44:06 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:23:02PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >>>Wouldn't it then make sense just to build a shared libdisk? Is there a >>>reason not to have one? >>> >> >>Here's the original reason. I'm not sure if it still holds. peter@ and >>phk@ Cc:ed. >> >>: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/lib/libdisk/Makefile,v >>: Working file: Makefile >>: head: 1.44 >>: branch: >>: locks: strict >>: access list: >>: keyword substitution: kv >>: total revisions: 65; selected revisions: 1 >>: description: >>: ---------------------------- >>: revision 1.12 >>: date: 1996/03/17 19:02:07; author: peter; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0 >>: Repository copy src/release/libdisk to src/lib/libdisk as per recent >>: discussion on -core about disk partitioning tools etc. >>: >>: Add NOPIC=yes to Makefile to prevent any possibility of version mismatch >>: because of the potential grave consequences. (as suggested by phk) >>: >>: Note that this is also on RELENG_2_1_0, since the sysinstall stuff is >>: hopefully going to remain in sync. >> > > As a safe measure, we can build and install a special PIC archive, > similar to libc_pic.a and libgcc_pic.a, and use it here. This is > all in an assumption that it's still unsafe to produce the libdisk.so. > > > Cheers, One way or another, please fix it. Why is bsnmp linking to libdisk anyways? It's an absolutely horrible library. Scott