Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:12:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: randy@zyzzyva.com (Randy Terbush) Subject: Re: stable breakage Message-ID: <199606051113.NAA08452@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <199606012008.PAA01451@sierra.zyzzyva.com> from "Randy Terbush" at Jun 1, 96 03:08:12 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randy Terbush writes: > >>> rune.c isn't needed anymore as it only contains the functions >>> setinvalidrune() and setrunelocale(), which are defined in setinvalidrune.c >>> and setrunelocale.c. >>> >>> Remove the reference to runc.c in lib/libc/locale/Makefile.inc to fix this >>> problem. (You can nuke rune.c as well.) >> >> Huh? Are you sure? It's still in the 2.2-current version of this >> file. I'd love to have the fix be so simple, but if this is still >> done in 2.2 then I have to wonder.. > > Nope! Not quite that simple. It seems that common_setlocale.c also needs > to be added to the libc/locale/Makefile.inc. I seriously hosed myself > doing make world when new_categories() was suddenly missing. > > A quick comparison of the libc.so.2.2 from 2.1R shows that there may > be other things missing as well. > >> From 2.1R > -r--r--r-- 1 bin bin 435248 Jun 1 14:25 /usr/lib/libc.so.2.2 > From the current -stable > -rwxr-x--- 1 root develop 384472 Jun 1 15:01 /usr/src/lib/libc/obj/libc.so.2 > > Word of warning: > Unless you are linking everything static, a make world in -stable may > seriously ruin your day. Tell me about it. It's a good thing to have another box NFS mounted. I'm really making -stable for installation on another system. I can't see any good reason to have to install it on the system on which I'm building in order to achieve this goal. I've already modified the libc Makefiles to take header files only from the /usr/src hierarchy; it should be possible to use different binary and library paths as well, so that the build environment is completely separate from the host environment. I know there's been a lot of talk about this before, but what are the current arguments against such a solution? Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606051113.NAA08452>