From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 26 16:10:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD1716A427 for ; Thu, 26 May 2005 16:10:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-java@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E857C43D64 for ; Thu, 26 May 2005 16:10:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-java@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DbKsK-0006vr-KK for freebsd-java@freebsd.org; Thu, 26 May 2005 18:06:24 +0200 Received: from 69-171-193-20.sbtnvt.adelphia.net ([69.171.193.20]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 May 2005 18:06:24 +0200 Received: from scott by 69-171-193-20.sbtnvt.adelphia.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 May 2005 18:06:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org From: "Scott I. Remick" Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:04:36 -0400 Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: <200505221342.19274.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <200505251623.55084.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20050526052502.GA90963@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20050526145459.GA98285@misty.eyesbeyond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 69-171-193-20.sbtnvt.adelphia.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) X-Archive: encrypt Sender: news Subject: Re: OS check fails on JDK 1.4 & FreeBSD 5.4R X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:10:54 -0000 On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:54:59 -0600, Greg Lewis wrote: > That would be your problem then. The test expects to use -lc_r on 5.x > and higher: > > .if ${OSVERSION} > 500000 > LINKIT= -lc_r > .else > LINKIT= -pthread > .endif Isn't that backwards? The default threading library changed from libc_r to libpthread in 5.3 > However, you should have libc_r on 5.4: ... > So your machine would seem to be somewhat hosed unless you've > deliberately removed libc_r. Well isn't this interesting. I guess I thought it was a "could" instead of a "should". When I updated from 5.2 -> 5.3 I had all sorts of problems with stuff being linked to both libc_r AND libpthread. The mailing lists showed I was one of many. Several people reiterated how you need to be sure to avoid having anything linked to more than one threading library... you want it to be ALL libc_r or ALL libpthread. And with libpthread being the new default, I went with the latter. DuriDuring this transition all sorts of fixes were offered including using libmap.conf in order to ease the transition from libc_r -> libpthread and make everything happy and working again. Some people (myself included) still has issues with things getting linked to libc_r so in order to force things to clearly break so we could clean up the old linkage and get them rebuilt, we deleted /usr/lib/libc_r* which was a step also talked about by many in the mailing lists as part of the steps (Tim Robbins @freebsd.org comes to mind). I don't recall anyone saying to NOT do that, that it could be bad, that libc_r was necessary or anything like that.t. In fact, it was those steps that finally got my system cleaned up and sorted out, and I've been running happily on libpthread without any libc_r references ever since. Dan: I even saw posts from you on the old thread. There was never any mention about the deletion of libc_r* back then as a solution being bad. So I guess I have 2 questions now: 1) If libpthread is the new default, replacing libc_r, and you have to have all things linked to just one or the other, basically libc_r has been depreciated. How come the OS version check for JDK 1.4 wants libc_r if the OS > 5.0? 2) What am I to do now, since the purging of all things libc_r when I upgraded to 5.3 is what ultimately fixed my system and has kept things running smoothly ever since? Sorry for being such a newbie on this, it's just frustrating when you think you've fixed things in an officially-endorsed way, only to learn you've done something horribly wrong. :(