Trouble compiling on 2.9

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by Splu » Wed, 08 Aug 2001 21:29:50



Hi,

I have a clean FTP install of 2.9 (with all options, generic kernel) on
a P120/48 and I'm having endless trouble compiling ports in particular.

Starting from a completely clean ports tree (deleted entirely then cvs'd
a new one). Compiling MySQL fails (it goes and gets the correct latest
version successfully). PHP4 fails too. The errors are never very
informative.

The pth library used by MySQL needed to be compiled too, but the version
obtained through the ports tree failed to compile too (not a good sign).
When I contacted the maintainer about this, he sent me a copy of his
(which was supposedly the same version as from the ports tree) and that
compiled OK, but did not help MySQL. Here's an example error from
MySQL's make:

cc -DMAP_TO_USE_RAID -I./../include -I../include  
-I/usr/local/include/pth -I/usr/include  -DDBUG_OFF -O2 -c mi_dynrec.c
/tmp/cce27495.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cce27495.s:4086: Error: Local symbol L203  never defined.
/tmp/cce27495.s:4086: Error: Local symbol L231  never defined.
/tmp/cce27495.s:4086: Error: Local symbol L238  never defined.
/tmp/cce27495.s:4086: Fatal error:3 errors, 0 warnings, no object file
generated.

*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/databases/mysql/work/mysql-3.23.40/myisam.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/databases/mysql/work/mysql-3.23.40 (line 269 of
Makefile).
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/databases/mysql/work/mysql-3.23.40 (line 397 of
Makefile).
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/databases/mysql (line 1635 of
/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk).

Any ideas about what's wrong? This particular error looks fairly deep
down - it's not giving me any indication of where the poblem might be
inside mi_dynrec.c. I haven't the faintest idea of how to go about
fixing this kind of problem.

So far the only port I have managed to compile successfully is moria!

Thanks

 
 
 

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by walt » Thu, 09 Aug 2001 04:04:39



> Hi,

> I have a clean FTP install of 2.9 (with all options, generic kernel) on
> a P120/48 and I'm having endless trouble compiling ports in particular.

> Starting from a completely clean ports tree (deleted entirely then cvs'd
> a new one)...

Lord knows I'm no expert on the subject, but I did pick four of the
ports that were of interest to me (sort of randomly) and three of
them compiled and ran on the first attempt.  The fourth one politely
told me it was 'broken' and didn't even attempt a compile.

So, I wonder if using a freshly CVS'd version of the ports with a
stock 2.9 install doesn't work right for some reason.

It's read somewhere that there is only one version of the ports
tree, but that may be wrong.  If you look at ftp.openbsd.org there
are at least two different ports files (different sizes):

ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l 2.9/ports.tar.gz
-rw-r--r--   1 service  service      4107012 May  1 16:17 2.9/ports.tar.gz
ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l snapshots/ports.tar.gz
-r--r--r--   1 12187    mirror      4565448 Aug  7 04:01 snapshots/ports.tar.gz

I'd try just downloading the one for 2.9 and starting with that.

Anyone know for sure about different versions of the ports tree?

 
 
 

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by Dave Uhrin » Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:30:25




>> Hi,

>> I have a clean FTP install of 2.9 (with all options, generic kernel) on
>> a P120/48 and I'm having endless trouble compiling ports in particular.

>> Starting from a completely clean ports tree (deleted entirely then cvs'd
>> a new one)...

> Lord knows I'm no expert on the subject, but I did pick four of the
> ports that were of interest to me (sort of randomly) and three of
> them compiled and ran on the first attempt.  The fourth one politely
> told me it was 'broken' and didn't even attempt a compile.

> So, I wonder if using a freshly CVS'd version of the ports with a
> stock 2.9 install doesn't work right for some reason.

> It's read somewhere that there is only one version of the ports
> tree, but that may be wrong.  If you look at ftp.openbsd.org there
> are at least two different ports files (different sizes):

> ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l 2.9/ports.tar.gz
> -rw-r--r--   1 service  service      4107012 May  1 16:17 2.9/ports.tar.gz
> ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l snapshots/ports.tar.gz
> -r--r--r--   1 12187    mirror      4565448 Aug  7 04:01
> snapshots/ports.tar.gz

> I'd try just downloading the one for 2.9 and starting with that.

> Anyone know for sure about different versions of the ports tree?

For about 6 weeks or so after a release, the "current" ports tree will work
with the release version.  After that, you are going to have to track
current by CVS in order to be able to use the current ports system.  It has
been about 9 weeks since the latest release.
 
 
 

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by walt » Sat, 11 Aug 2001 13:55:05




> > ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l 2.9/ports.tar.gz
> > -rw-r--r--   1 service  service      4107012 May  1 16:17 2.9/ports.tar.gz
> > ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l snapshots/ports.tar.gz
> > -r--r--r--   1 12187    mirror      4565448 Aug  7 04:01
> > snapshots/ports.tar.gz

> > I'd try just downloading the one for 2.9 and starting with that.

> > Anyone know for sure about different versions of the ports tree?

> For about 6 weeks or so after a release, the "current" ports tree will work
> with the release version.  After that, you are going to have to track
> current by CVS in order to be able to use the current ports system.  It has
> been about 9 weeks since the latest release.

Part of my confusion with the terminology is that I'm tracking FreeBSD,
OpenBSD and Linux.  I think the words are used differently between the
three OS's.

Do you use the word 'current' to mean bleeding-edge unstable, or just
the most recent stable distribution?

I don't want to be unstable/testing in OpenBSD, but I do want to track
bug fixes in 2.9.  So, which 'tag' do I want to use for updating the
ports system?

 
 
 

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by Dave Uhrin » Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:09:38





>> > ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l 2.9/ports.tar.gz
>> > -rw-r--r--   1 service  service      4107012 May  1 16:17
>> > 2.9/ports.tar.gz ncftp /pub/OpenBSD > ls -l snapshots/ports.tar.gz
>> > -r--r--r--   1 12187    mirror      4565448 Aug  7 04:01
>> > snapshots/ports.tar.gz

>> > I'd try just downloading the one for 2.9 and starting with that.

>> > Anyone know for sure about different versions of the ports tree?

>> For about 6 weeks or so after a release, the "current" ports tree
>> will work
>> with the release version.  After that, you are going to have to track
>> current by CVS in order to be able to use the current ports system.
>> It has been about 9 weeks since the latest release.

> Part of my confusion with the terminology is that I'm tracking
> FreeBSD,
> OpenBSD and Linux.  I think the words are used differently between the
> three OS's.

> Do you use the word 'current' to mean bleeding-edge unstable, or just
> the most recent stable distribution?

> I don't want to be unstable/testing in OpenBSD, but I do want to track
> bug fixes in 2.9.  So, which 'tag' do I want to use for updating the
> ports system?

With FreeBSD you have all kinds of tags to keep track of.  With OpenBSD
there is one -current.  On the systems which I don't play with, I
install the release source tree and as patches become necessary, I
apply those patches to the release source.  Current on OpenBSD is
analogous to FreeBSD-STABLE, since the next release will be a snapshot
of the OpenBSD-Current code as will the next release of FreeBSD be a
snapshot of FreeBSD-STABLE.

OpenBSD-Current is not as well tested as is FreeBSD-STABLE at any given
point in time since FreeBSD's CURRENT source tree offers an opportunity
to test various changes before moving those changes to the STABLE tree.
OpenBSD simply does not have the number of contributors which FreeBSD
has, thus maintaining a separate STABLE tree is out of the question.

You can always upgrade your OpenBSD-Release to OpenBSD-snapshot since
the snapshots are taken at a time when the system is reasonably stable,
and the current ports will work with the snapshot.

 
 
 

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by Splu » Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:40:49




Quote:> With FreeBSD you have all kinds of tags to keep track of.  With OpenBSD
> there is one -current.  On the systems which I don't play with, I
> install the release source tree and as patches become necessary, I
> apply those patches to the release source.  Current on OpenBSD is
> analogous to FreeBSD-STABLE, since the next release will be a snapshot
> of the OpenBSD-Current code as will the next release of FreeBSD be a
> snapshot of FreeBSD-STABLE.

> OpenBSD-Current is not as well tested as is FreeBSD-STABLE at any given
> point in time since FreeBSD's CURRENT source tree offers an opportunity
> to test various changes before moving those changes to the STABLE tree.
> OpenBSD simply does not have the number of contributors which FreeBSD
> has, thus maintaining a separate STABLE tree is out of the question.

> You can always upgrade your OpenBSD-Release to OpenBSD-snapshot since
> the snapshots are taken at a time when the system is reasonably stable,
> and the current ports will work with the snapshot.

From the docs I'm under the impression that significant patches are
reversed from -current into the OPENBSD_29 branch, so if you want to
stay up to date with patches, you should follow that branch. This is
suggested by the docs precisely because it is more stable than -current.

The thing I don't understand is why I'm having trouble compiling MySQL
and PHP - these are not exactly unusual or esoteric packages. The very
fact that they are listed in the ports tree should indicate that they
are meant to work - otherwise they're not ports! If I'm having trouble
compiling them on a comparatively clean system, how on earth are they
expected to compile on more established systems?

Since I had this problem, I have managed to compile several PERL modules
successfully, so it's not my compiler setup.

The trouble I had with pth is also very suspicious - a version from the
ports tree would not compile, but a copy direct from the maintainer of
that port compiled with no problems. He told me that the two versions
were the same (same version numbers), but clearly they were not as only
one worked.

 
 
 

Trouble compiling on 2.9

Post by Dave Uhrin » Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:11:13





>> With FreeBSD you have all kinds of tags to keep track of.  With
>> OpenBSD
>> there is one -current.  On the systems which I don't play with, I
>> install the release source tree and as patches become necessary, I
>> apply those patches to the release source.  Current on OpenBSD is
>> analogous to FreeBSD-STABLE, since the next release will be a
>> snapshot of the OpenBSD-Current code as will the next release of
>> FreeBSD be a snapshot of FreeBSD-STABLE.

>> OpenBSD-Current is not as well tested as is FreeBSD-STABLE at any
>> given point in time since FreeBSD's CURRENT source tree offers an
>> opportunity to test various changes before moving those changes to
>> the STABLE tree. OpenBSD simply does not have the number of
>> contributors which FreeBSD has, thus maintaining a separate STABLE
>> tree is out of the question.

>> You can always upgrade your OpenBSD-Release to OpenBSD-snapshot since
>> the snapshots are taken at a time when the system is reasonably
>> stable, and the current ports will work with the snapshot.

> From the docs I'm under the impression that significant patches are
> reversed from -current into the OPENBSD_29 branch, so if you want to
> stay up to date with patches, you should follow that branch. This is
> suggested by the docs precisely because it is more stable than
> -current.

> The thing I don't understand is why I'm having trouble compiling MySQL
> and PHP - these are not exactly unusual or esoteric packages. The very
> fact that they are listed in the ports tree should indicate that they
> are meant to work - otherwise they're not ports! If I'm having trouble
> compiling them on a comparatively clean system, how on earth are they
> expected to compile on more established systems?

> Since I had this problem, I have managed to compile several PERL
> modules successfully, so it's not my compiler setup.

> The trouble I had with pth is also very suspicious - a version from
> the ports tree would not compile, but a copy direct from the
> maintainer of that port compiled with no problems. He told me that the
> two versions were the same (same version numbers), but clearly they
> were not as only one worked.

Well, just to see if I could reproduce your errors, I built mysql from
/usr/ports/databases/mysql and had not one error.  I had previously
built pth in order to build ghostscript.  System ID:

OpenBSD 2.9-current (dave) #1: Sun Aug 12 11:30:34 CDT 2001

cpu0: AMD Athlon Model 4 (Thunderbird) ("AuthenticAMD" 686-class) 850
MHz
cpu0:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,SYS,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR
real mem  = 536457216 (523884K)
avail mem = 494206976 (482624K)

Perhaps the CVS tag on your ports checkout is incorrect.  Suggest you
rm -rf /usr/ports, after saving distfiles and packages somewhere else,
and CVS checkout a new set of ports appropriate to the date of your
basic system.

As you can see, my system is -current as of last Sunday and the system
and ports tree are in synch.

There does remain the possibility that the mysql port had some problems
with it at the time you checked out your ports.  In that case, set your
tag to OPENBSD_2_9_TRACKING_SWITCH and do your CVS checkout.

 
 
 

1. OpenBSD 2.9 Isakmpd Troubles

Hey guys,
    I'm having one heck of a time setting up a vpn between 2 OpenBSD 2.9
boxes. Well, i tried some default files and just changed the ip information
for the external stuff and the internal networks and still no luck. What is
odd is all the different configs still dont show any kind of additions to
the routing tables. When i do a netstat -rn It shows nothing under encap. I
can see with a tcpdump the traffic between the two hosts via port 500 but no
esp traffic or anything. So I'm wondering if there is a bug or i am doing
something wrong in the config file? I dont think i even get a SA correctly
this is some of the output from running isakmpd with -d and -DA=99

205350.732926 SA   90 sa_find: no SA matched query
205350.733283 Sdep 70 pf_key_v2_connection_check: SA for IPsec-east-west
missing
205350.733610 Misc 60 conf_get_str: [IPsec-east-west]:Phase->2
205350.733928 Exch 90 exchange_lookup_by_name: IPsec-east-west ==
IPsec-east-west && 2 == 2?
205350.736198 Exch 40 exchange_establish: IPsec-east-west exchange already
exists as 0x10d900

also i get tons of this

205252.357034 Trpt 90 transport_release: transport 0x10fa80 had 2 references

ANY help would be greatly apperciated. All the howtos are very slim on
troubleshooting in various areas about isakmpd problems. Thanks for the help
in advance.
Dave

2. AIX 4.3.3, Java 1.3, enumeration of serial ports

3. trouble w/ procps-1.2.9

4. xdm difficulties...

5. OpenBSD 2.9 and serial port troubles

6. How do you get rid of that 'thing' following your mouse pointer whenever you start apps?

7. ipnat/ipf trouble in 2.9

8. Linux and netatalk problem (password)

9. Trouble shooting FTP install of 2.9

10. trying to compile 2.9 stable, unknown group network

11. Compiling PHP on OpenBSD 2.9

12. x compile fails after applying patch 009 (OpenBSD 2.9)

13. Problems compiling IRC 2.9 server