Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:50:05 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/33595: libc breaking in -STABLE Message-ID: <200201081550.g08Fo5w16583@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR misc/33595; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/33595: libc breaking in -STABLE Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:47:44 +0200 On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 07:40:07AM -0800, f.johan.beisser wrote: > The following reply was made to PR misc/33595; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org> > To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> > Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: misc/33595: libc breaking in -STABLE > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:36:32 -0800 (PST) > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 05:40:28 PST, "f.johan.beisser" wrote: > > > > > i know this, but recently having patched gcc with the "stack-protector" > > > made me wish to test a build on *part* of the base system, without > > > rebuilding all of the userland or kernel. libc was one of the recommended > > > pieces to rebuild. > > > > You _can_ rebuild just libc, but you must use sources synchronized with > > the installed base. In other words, use the same sources used to build > > world. > > so, tracking RELENG_4_4 would work, but RELENG_4 would not? Even then it is not really guaranteed to work. In practice I really expect that it should work, because RELENG_4_4 sees no changes of this magnitude. The problem is with the tracking itself - when you updated your source tree, you updated pieces outside of libc along with those in libc. In this particular case, the ones in libc depend on the correct 'bootstrap' and the other phases that a buildworld does before rebuilding libraries. In this particular case, rebuilding libc without having the proper header files already in a place where the compiler can see them is doomed to failure. > > > granted, doing a buildworld to rebuild the entire base system is a bit > > > better of a habit (it's what i ususally do), rebuilding everything to test > > > a "modified" compiler is a bit excessive. > > > > The "mistake" you made was to update your sources to do this, instead of > > just using the sources used for the last upgrade (or the sources > > installed with the binary upgrade / installation). > > upgraded source tree that i tend to keep up to date, even if i don't build > from it. that was my mistake. tracking the wrong branch. Not really. Your mistake was rebuilding only a part of the source tree *after upgrading the whole of it* and *before building the whole of it*. Once you have completed a buildworld, you can change and rebuild any of the libraries all you like. > anyhow, now i know, despite several years of working on this stuff. i like > things that keep the OS interesting. I can relate to that :) G'luck, Peter -- .siht ekil ti gnidaer eb d'uoy ,werbeH ni erew ecnetnes siht fI To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201081550.g08Fo5w16583>