07:04 pm, 1 Nov 04
ports
I've only built one or two things out of FreeBSD's ports system, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but when I tried to build ghc it died in the middle with some compilation error. I poked around a bit and couldn't figure much out -- it looked like it was in one of the final linking stages, and there was no error message aside from make complaining about a nonzero exit code.
So I tried running cvsup, make clean, and then make again, and now I get
/usr/ports/lang/ghc/work/ghc-6.2.2-boot/b
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libreadline.so.5" not found
Remind me again why I'm compiling everything?
So I tried running cvsup, make clean, and then make again, and now I get
/usr/ports/lang/ghc/work/ghc-6.2.2-boot/b
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libreadline.so.5" not found
Remind me again why I'm compiling everything?
there's an easier way
Install sysutils/portupgrade, and then do portinstall lang/scheme48 or whatever. You don't have to guess at the package names that way. If you do portinstall -P lang/scheme48, it'll try to grab a precompiled package, if one exists, before compiling from source.
You also get pkgdb and portupgrade, which will simplify the task of keeping your packages updated. After you do a cvsup of ports, run pkgdb -F and then portupgrade -na to see what needs to be upgraded. See section 4.5.5 here.
Re: there's an easier way
I think I somehow broke my system, which is pretty amusing because I feel like I've never really messed with it. I manually installed libreadline before your comment, but now that I use portupgrade it's dying with:/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libm.so.3" not found
Which looks pretty serious.
Re: there's an easier way
upon further investigation, it appears there's been some sort of transition that i missed. maybe i updated my ports to -current and i'm running -release? i don't think i saw an option for -release; is that the same as -stable?Re: there's an easier way
Do you have /usr/lib/libm.so.3? I think that's in 5.2.x. Does it show up in ldconfig -r? If you have the file but it's not in ldconfig's output, either run /etc/rc.d/ldconfig or reboot. If you don't have the file...I don't know what you did!The ports tree doesn't track operating system releases for the most part. A few ports are broken for 5.x, a few require 5.x, and their Makefiles have ifdefs in them that'll stop you from installing them where they won't work. Your cvsup file probably looks like:
and that's pretty much all you need.
Re: there's an easier way
Okay, I poked around some more. My 5.2.1 box has /lib/libm.so.2. I searched the CVS tree, and found this. Are you running a 5.3 prerelease? If not, it seems that you've ended up with a binary package (ruby, perhaps?) that was compiled for 5.3 (and hence, expects libm.so.3). I don't know what all you've installed on your system, so I don't know how this happened.One way to fix it is to pkg_delete the portupgrade and ruby packages you have installed (do an ls in /var/lib/pkg to get the exact package names), and then install sysutils/portupgrade manually. Next, run pkgdb -F and then you should be able to use the portupgrade/portinstall tools.
Lol. Because your on *nix? (Because you can?)
Seriously however, why would anyone find doing that even remotely normal? It's nice that the source is available, but I really want to do the things I need a program for, not compiling the program I need... As I've heard somewhere 'People don't want a drill. They want a hole in their wall.' Paraphrasing this: I don't want to compile Gimp, I want to edit pictures.
Paranoid & Bored Users
Believe it or not there are those of us out there who PREFER to build everything from source. There is a dorky sense of pride some of us get from compiling everything from source. Not to mention that whenever you install anything that you don't compile yourself, your never 100% sure about what your installing. At least you know when you compile everything yourself from source, that your running clean binaries which are specifically tailored to your enviroment and not just generic binaries. .....ok.. I lied... the real reason I like to compile everything from source is it gives me an excuse to take a break and toke up a bowl....Re: Paranoid & Bored Users
If you know what compiling does you'll know that's not true. :)Re: Paranoid & Bored Users
First of all, what I meant to say was that I don't understand why making users compile everything seems to be an accepted way of software distribution under (some distributions of) linux. I see the ability to compile everything yourself as a (nice) side-effect of the fact that it's open source, not as the preferred method of distribution.you don't compile yourself, your never 100% sure about what your installing
This is a strange myth I never understood. Have you reviewed every line of every bit of code that went into your system? Impossible, I dare say. So in what way are you sure what you are installing?
that your running clean binaries which are specifically tailored to your enviroment and not just generic binaries
This is a better argument I think, if you use something like autoconf and if that results in the correct compiler flags to optimize for your processor... Or if you know all the right compiler switches and use them yourself.
But how do you know if typing make config; make install in the right place does all that?
Re: Paranoid & Bored Users
I don't think compiler flags to optimize for your processor will make much of a difference in most applications.