SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Don Woodwar » Sun, 09 Apr 2000 04:00:00



Much to my disappointment Solaris 8 installed gcc and the libraries in
"/opt/sfw" and I installed some more software in "/usr/local", now I have
include files in both locations. Is there any way to have an include path,
like LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for libs, to search both locations for includes? Or
do I have to edit every Makefile and add the "/opt/sfw" include until
developers start supporting Solaris 8 naming?

As a last resort, I guess I could move the contents of /usr/local/include to
/opt/sfw/include and make a link from /usr/local/include to
/opt/sfw/include.

Don Woodward
www.sunsunsun.net

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Alex Prohorenk » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Don,

I use to make /opt a link to /usr/local.


> Much to my disappointment Solaris 8 installed gcc and the libraries in
> "/opt/sfw" and I installed some more software in "/usr/local", now I have
> include files in both locations. Is there any way to have an include path,
> like LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for libs, to search both locations for includes? Or
> do I have to edit every Makefile and add the "/opt/sfw" include until
> developers start supporting Solaris 8 naming?
> As a last resort, I guess I could move the contents of /usr/local/include to
> /opt/sfw/include and make a link from /usr/local/include to
> /opt/sfw/include.
> Don Woodward
> www.sunsunsun.net
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

--
Alexander Prohorenko, Extra Solutions [ http://extra.com.ua ]

  "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
                                                        -- H. Spencer

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Stefan Berglu » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00



> Don,

> I use to make /opt a link to /usr/local.


> > Much to my disappointment Solaris 8 installed gcc and the libraries in
> > "/opt/sfw" and I installed some more software in "/usr/local", now I have
> > include files in both locations. Is there any way to have an include path,
> > like LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for libs, to search both locations for includes? Or
> > do I have to edit every Makefile and add the "/opt/sfw" include until
> > developers start supporting Solaris 8 naming?

At the Solaris 8 admin intro I attended last week they said that
Solaris finally is supporting the Linux style ld.config, try man ld.so
Finally a end to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH/-R insanity.
I think that it is a good idea to separate the pd-stuff that is
"bundled" with the OS from the ones you install yourself.

BTW. We will wait until (at least) the first MU before installing the
first couple of testmachines.
It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

Quote:> > As a last resort, I guess I could move the contents of /usr/local/include to
> > /opt/sfw/include and make a link from /usr/local/include to
> > /opt/sfw/include.

Or softlink it, but I don't really see the need to bother?

--
                        /Stefan

Life - the ultimate practical joke

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Martin Pau » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00



> BTW. We will wait until (at least) the first MU before installing the
> first couple of testmachines.

Isn't that what I heard Gartner Group telling about the Win2K "upgrade"
again and again ? :)

Quote:> It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

Seriously, the Solaris FCS versions were always good enough at least
for test machines. One could argue if you should put it on a production
machine, but my desktop machine usually has the newest release as
soon as it is available.

hth, mp.
--
                         Martin Paul | Systems Administrator

Liechtensteinstrasse 22, A-1090 Wien | Tel: 01-3105608-84
        http://www.par.univie.ac.at/ | Fax: 01-3105608-88

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00


[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]


>At the Solaris 8 admin intro I attended last week they said that
>Solaris finally is supporting the Linux style ld.config, try man ld.so
>Finally a end to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH/-R insanity.

-R is good, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is bad.

Quote:>I think that it is a good idea to separate the pd-stuff that is
>"bundled" with the OS from the ones you install yourself.

Yes, but that still works fine w/ -R.

Quote:>BTW. We will wait until (at least) the first MU before installing the
>first couple of testmachines.
>It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

Why?

The first MU will not be out until 3 months or so after the release.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Chris Thomps » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00





[...]
>>It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

>Why?

Does this really need an answer? So that the other patsies^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hheroes
can get the software debugged, of course.

The difficulty is to judge whether "soon" is "too soon" or not.

Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Philip Bro » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00



>...
>At the Solaris 8 admin intro I attended last week they said that
>Solaris finally is supporting the Linux style ld.config, try man ld.so
>Finally a end to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH/-R insanity.

Umm... isn't that the same as the old SunOS ldconfig or whatever?
So wouldn't that be a giant step BACKWARDS?

Personally, I *LIKE* LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Logan Sh » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00





>> > Much to my disappointment Solaris 8 installed gcc and the libraries in
>> > "/opt/sfw" and I installed some more software in "/usr/local", now I have
>> > include files in both locations. Is there any way to have an include path,
>> > like LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for libs, to search both locations for includes? Or
>> > do I have to edit every Makefile and add the "/opt/sfw" include until
>> > developers start supporting Solaris 8 naming?

>At the Solaris 8 admin intro I attended last week they said that
>Solaris finally is supporting the Linux style ld.config, try man ld.so
>Finally a end to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH/-R insanity.

The "-R" stuff isn't insanity, in my opinion.  It's actually very handy
since you can have two versions of a software package installed at
once, and each can use its own version of a shared library if necessary.

It is a pain to have to rebuild executables to change their shared
library search path, but that could be fixed with a tool that allows
you to just modify an executable's search path instead of rebuilding.

Anyway, on to the original point of my message.

LD_LIBRARY_PATH, LD_RUN_PATH, ldconfig, and all those fun things don't
have anything to do with the original question, which was whether
there's a way to fix the problem coexistence of /opt/sfw and /usr/local
causes for ->INCLUDE<- paths.

Of course, the answer to that question is: depends on your compiler,
and your Makefile, and all that fun stuff.  Generally, the easiest
solution is to edit the Makefile.

Unfortunately, the "configure" script that comes with lots of free
software's source doesn't allow you to specify an additional include
directory, because that would be too easy and useful.  So instead,
you end up doing something like this:

        export CFLAGS='-O2 -I/some/dir/include -I/other/dir/include'
        ./configure --prefix=/some/where

which works fine until the package decides *IT* knows best what the
appropriate setting for CFLAGS is (because it *just* *knows* that its
optimization flags are the right ones) and overrides yours.  Then, it
complains it can't find your include files even though you've told it
how to do so, because the build environment ties optimization choices
to include file location choices.

That's the weakness with the "if we let the user pass through the
switches they want for the compiler, then that'll solve all the world's
problems" attitude...

  - Logan

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Peter Bunclar » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00





> [...]
> >>It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

> >Why?

> Does this really need an answer? So that the other patsies^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hheroes
> can get the software debugged, of course.

Those of us running the beta version since last millenium have been
there and done that.

Quote:

> The difficulty is to judge whether "soon" is "too soon" or not.

If you think you might have an application which would break when
many other testers are satisfied, then you should really put up
a test system and try out your stuff; the sooner you submit
those bug reports the sooner they get fixed.

Chris Thompson

Quote:> Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk

Pete.
 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Peter C. Tribb » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00







> [...]
>>>It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

>>Why?

> Does this really need an answer? So that the other patsies^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hheroes
> can get the software debugged, of course.

> The difficulty is to judge whether "soon" is "too soon" or not.

Indeed, and you really need to try it for yourself to be sure.

We were on the Solaris 7 beta program. On the basis of that, we skipped
2.6 which never worked right. Within weeks of receiving Solaris 7 FCS
we upgraded our machines to Solaris 7 as fast as we could and they've
run happily ever since.

Having been on the Solaris 8 beta program, and having tested Solaris 8
FCS, it's not going near our service machines or general users anytime
soon. There's some good stuff, but we're still ironing out the wrinkles.

--
-Peter Tribble
HGMP Computing Services
http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Stefan Berglu » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00



> [[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]


> >At the Solaris 8 admin intro I attended last week they said that
> >Solaris finally is supporting the Linux style ld.config, try man ld.so
> >Finally a end to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH/-R insanity.

> -R is good, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is bad.

When you have a very extensive set of publicdomain software there can
be quite some confusion and the same librarypackage with different
versions can be scattered all over the place. Badly written (often
linux-centric) Makefiles is often doing the -R thing partly for
example pointing to the X11 libs but not at other libs.
LD_RUN_PATH isn't helping me there as the -R flag is overriding it.
The solution is to specify each directory with -R in the correct
order, this is timeconsuming and tedious.
ldconfig gives me a tool to configure _once_ where the libs are at
_one_ location and not in each and every binary or account.

-R makes my life a little bit more difficult, ldconfig is probably
going to make it easier, so I'm happy :)

Quote:> >BTW. We will wait until (at least) the first MU before installing the
> >first couple of testmachines.
> >It is probably a mistake to migrate too soon.

> Why?

> The first MU will not be out until 3 months or so after the release.

Just my point. ;)
First at the meeting I attended we got the impression that some new
features isn't going to be in until the first MU.
Waiting will also give an indication of possible securitybugs and
other things that isn't quite ready...
As Solaris 8 target ISP:s with a lot of important new things for that
environment it is hopefully giving a larger installbase in hostile
environments and might quite quickly surface the most important
security glitches. ;)
Let them do the testing... If all goes well we will follow.

On the upside I can say that we normally is one release behind for
these reasons and are probably skipping Solaris 7 to go right to
Solaris 8, due to the fact (?) that it has been run "inhouse" for a
year or so and seems to be well tested.

I just have two questions:

I have been told that Solaris 8 has been run at your workstations for
a year or so but how long has it been run at suns missioncritical
servers, firewalls and webservers?
How much testing has been done to actively try to break it gaining
root access from outside?

--
                        /Stefan

Life - the ultimate practical joke

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Stefan Berglu » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00




> >...
> >At the Solaris 8 admin intro I attended last week they said that
> >Solaris finally is supporting the Linux style ld.config, try man ld.so
> >Finally a end to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH/-R insanity.

> Umm... isn't that the same as the old SunOS ldconfig or whatever?
> So wouldn't that be a giant step BACKWARDS?

Not in my opinion. I prefer to config once where all libs are at one
location.
Not all new things are improvements...

Quote:> Personally, I *LIKE* LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

It is still there, if you like it use it.

--
                        /Stefan

Life - the ultimate practical joke

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Phillip Faye » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00



Quote:>I have been told that Solaris 8 has been run at your workstations for
>a year or so but how long has it been run at suns missioncritical
>servers, firewalls and webservers?

According to the UK Sun O/S engineers at the presentation I was at Solaris
8 has been running on their production servers for some time.  The engineers
commented that they have been running Solaris 8 on the desktop since before
the release of Solaris 7 and that they are now running `Solaris next' ie.
Solaris 9 (unless they change the name again).

One interesting area which I hadn't understood is the way in which bug fixes
are done.  O/S bugs are fixed first in the version of Solaris which the
engineers run and then back ported to the version the customer is running,
so any bug fix which is in Solaris 7 should exist in Solaris 8 and any
bug you report on Solaris 8 will be fixed in Solaris 9 first.

--
Phillip Fayers, SunAdmin/Support/Programming/Postmaster/Webmaster(TM)
Dept of Physics & Astronomy, University of Wales, College of Cardiff.

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine » Wed, 12 Apr 2000 04:00:00


[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]


>One interesting area which I hadn't understood is the way in which bug fixes
>are done.  O/S bugs are fixed first in the version of Solaris which the
>engineers run and then back ported to the version the customer is running,
>so any bug fix which is in Solaris 7 should exist in Solaris 8 and any
>bug you report on Solaris 8 will be fixed in Solaris 9 first.

There are two important reasons for doing it this way:

        - it makes sure bug fixes don't get dropped in the next
          release
        - it causes the code to be run and tested on the desktops
          of a bunch of engineers as well as the engineering servers

For those who remember the bad old days, bug fixes did get dropped from
one release to the newxt fairly often.

You should also keep in mind that bugs are often fixed *only* in the new
release.  Sometimes this is because no customers insist on having it fixed;
and sometimes because fixing it requires major surgery on the kernel.
Major surgery is something we try to avoid in patches.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

 
 
 

SOLARIS 8 /opt/sfw

Post by Dan Strombe » Thu, 13 Apr 2000 04:00:00



<Unfortunately, the "configure" script that comes with lots of free
<software's source doesn't allow you to specify an additional include
<directory, because that would be too easy and useful.  So instead,
<you end up doing something like this:
<
<    export CFLAGS='-O2 -I/some/dir/include -I/other/dir/include'
<    ./configure --prefix=/some/where

With autoconf software (most free packages use autoconf these days),
I've had better luck with:

     export CC="gcc -I/foo"
     ./configure

...or...

     export CC="cc -I/foo"
     ./configure

instead of:

     export CFLAGS="-I/foo"
     ./configure