Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: felix@×××××××.com
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: A different Openoffice Build problem
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:41:32
Message-Id: 20061028213931.GA12171@crowfix.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-amd64] Re: A different Openoffice Build problem by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 Dang, I should have known you'd answer so much :-)
2
3 On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:24:45PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
4 > felix@×××××××.com posted 20061028062217.GA10209@×××××××.com, excerpted
5 > below, on Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:22:17 -0700:
6 >
7 > > The second run [of fix_libtool_files.sh] drops the v's inside the [],
8 > > and the first four FIXING lines with .../32/... disappear. A third
9 > > rundupped the second run. Seems suspicious to me that it would repeat
10 > > the FIXING lines.
11 >
12 > > I am not sure what you mean by "ensure they have the path" -- how would
13 > > I determine what path they have?
14
15 I like the full explanation, but I had meant how do I look inside .la
16 files -- I am not familiar with them and had assumed they were some
17 binary format, ELF or related. I did not realize they are just simple
18 text files :-)
19
20 > So that's the explanation. What you'd do to "ensure they have the path"
21 > manually would be to open the *.la files the build complains about, and
22 > verify that they point to the correct gcc as well as the old one.
23
24 The ONLY *.la files it complained about and said it was FIXING are in
25 the /usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/ directory, and that
26 doesn't seem like a good place to add 4.1.1 info ...
27
28 > To do it properly, if you haven't been running FEATURES=buildpkg and thus
29 > already have the packages available, use quickpkg to package up your
30 > gcc-3.4.6 version (and 3.4.2 while you are at it), so you can remerge them
31 > quickly without recompiling, then unmerge them. (Note that in some
32 > circumstances, unmerging the old ones might create issues, but you already
33 > tested most of that with the rename, and your core system continued to
34 > function so apparently at least the core system is fine without the old
35 > versions.)
36 >
37 > Now, run revdep-rebuild -p and see which packages you need to remerge.
38 > One of those is probably what was killing your OOo build. Remerge them as
39 > necessary (either removing the -p or doing it one by one, don't forget the
40 > --oneshot so as not to unnecessarily pollute your world file if you do it
41 > one by one).
42
43 I'll think about this ... I am going to be away from the machine for a
44 while and this is not a good time to start massive rebuilds or need to
45 fix it up afterwards. OOo is not even a low priority with me. Once
46 in a while I get powerpoint jokes in the mail, but that's about it.
47 Even aside form that, it's a big hairy program, and I was mostly
48 curious about the difference in speed.
49
50 Nevertheless, apparently I do have some things to fix, and even if I
51 don't care much about OOo itself, it may be a good canary for other
52 problems.
53
54 > When you are finished with the rebuild, try merging OOo again. If all
55 > goes well, the rebuild will have fixed your problem and you'll be in
56 > business.
57 >
58 > If you have issues after unmerging the old gccs, or run into something
59 > that won't compile with gcc4 but will with gcc3, you have the binary
60 > packages you created before the unmerge, and should be able to remerge
61 > them quickly using emerge's -k switch, along with the =gcc-<ver> syntax to
62 > get the version you want. Having gcc binpkgs around is also quite handy
63 > in case gcc breaks for some reason, since trying to use a broken gcc to
64 > emerge gcc doesn't tend to work so well.
65
66 Thanks for all the info.
67
68 --
69 ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
70 Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / felix@×××××××.com
71 GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933
72 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
73 --
74 gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-amd64] Re: A different Openoffice Build problem Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>