From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 27 17:37:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D9416A4E9 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:37:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from verbo.solo@sbcglobal.net) Received: from smtp106.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp106.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.53.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF62343D53 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:37:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from verbo.solo@sbcglobal.net) Received: (qmail 90916 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2006 17:37:40 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:Subject:From:To:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vczgF4SsaZnjuSFctLyMwgaTDxhskO//yzdWjr+3aBx4Zy7qGig+OR5/GSk31wzCkmZzLTqWOhDpPmMyvtbb2TAEODGJpeQc1h8IGY0xQNVz0K/CbJIWvVqbD09+2fqfJWeo/HQc1Z4iyCjPUJa+vz0NRI/S8LbYICJOTHrDl/8= ; Received: from unknown (HELO elbereth.gateway.2wire.net) (verbo.solo@sbcglobal.net@69.150.176.48 with plain) by smtp106.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2006 17:37:39 -0000 From: "Charles P. Schaum" To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:17:03 -0500 Message-Id: <1156699023.42004.30.camel@elbereth.gateway.2wire.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Some testing results from current build X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:37:44 -0000 Hi, I have tested with some success the measures NAKATA, Maho used. My approach was slightly modified. First I updated the ports tree. Then, after replacing NetBSD on my spare box with FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE (turn off ACPI on old board) I compared the two: 6.1-RELEASE /usr/lib libc_r.a libc_r.so (symlink) libc_r.so.6 (symlink target) libc_r_p.a 6-STABLE libc_r.a libc_r.so (symlink) libc_r.so.6 (symlink target) libc_r_p.a Same names, so symbols are the issue. The fact that the names are the same means that across multiple versions one can rename them to something bogus, e.g.: libc_r.a.deleted libc_r.so.deleted (symlink) libc_r.so.6 (symlink target) libc_r_p.a.deleted Note that renaming the symlink target cannot be done; it will only make a copy. This is no big deal because the build will succeed with just the three files thus renamed. This means that a pre-build step of (forgive my bash scripting): #Toggle libc_r - brute force style cut----- if [ -e /usr/lib/libc_r.a ]; then mv /usr/lib/libc_r.a libc_r.a.OOdeleted fi if [ -e /usr/lib/libc_r.so ]; then mv /usr/lib/libc_r.so libc_r.so.OOdeleted fi if [ -e /usr/lib/libc_r_p.a ]; then mv /usr/lib/libc_r_p.a /usr/lib/libc_r_p.a.OOdeleted fi cut----- and a post-build step of: cut----- if [ -e /usr/lib/libc_r.a.OOdeleted ]; then mv /usr/lib/libc_r.a libc_r.a fi if [ -e /usr/lib/libc_r.so.OOdeleted ]; then mv /usr/lib/libc_r.so libc_r.so fi if [ -e /usr/lib/libc_r_p.a.OOdeleted ]; then mv /usr/lib/libc_r_p.a /usr/lib/libc_r_p.a fi cut----- Such a step will leave the system intact, allow OOo to build and mitigate any possible need to rebiuld world. Otherwise should the libc_r thing get on the STABLE list? Charles