Re: Having a problem compiling a customized kernel

[Dimitry Andric]

On 2013-02-19 04:48, Kurt Buff wrote:

I'm working on troubleshooting a random network dropout in an older
Acer Aspire One, and am compiling an otherwise generic kernel with the
following options:

...

linking kernel.debug
ld:/usr/src/sys/conf/ldscript.i386:66: syntax error
*** [kernel.debug] Error code 1

...

I'm currently running 9.1-RELEASE - I had to svn the source, as I had
used freebsd-update last couple of weeks to move from 7.2 to 8.0 to
8.3 to 9.0 to 9.1.


Please run "make kernel-toolchain" first, as your binutils is too old.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Having a problem compiling a customized kernel

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:09:38AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2013-02-19 04:48, Kurt Buff wrote:
> >I'm working on troubleshooting a random network dropout in an older
> >Acer Aspire One, and am compiling an otherwise generic kernel with the
> >following options:
> ...
> >linking kernel.debug
> >ld:/usr/src/sys/conf/ldscript.i386:66: syntax error
> >*** [kernel.debug] Error code 1
> ...
> >I'm currently running 9.1-RELEASE - I had to svn the source, as I had
> >used freebsd-update last couple of weeks to move from 7.2 to 8.0 to
> >8.3 to 9.0 to 9.1.
> 
> Please run "make kernel-toolchain" first, as your binutils is too old.

I told him off-list that he needs to follow src/Makefile (specifically
told him he needs to do "buildworld") to a tee, every time, and
explained why.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick   j...@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administratorhttp://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Mountain View, CA, US|
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Sound problems with skype in FreeBSD home.encontacto.net 9.1-STABLE FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE #410 r246209M: Sat Feb 16 05:07:32 CST 2013 fr amd64

[Andriy Gapon]

on 19/02/2013 02:24 Edwin L. Culp W. said the following:
> Sound works fine for all players, browsers, etc.  everything except SKYPE
> 
> I've user both ports and both give the same results.  Rigt now I'm using:
> skype-2.1.0.81_1,1
> 
> I've used it for years with no problems.  It quite working during Christmas
> vacations.
> 
> Where could I start to trouble shoot this other than just erasing and
> rebuilding the skype ports.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> just in case:
> 
> cat /compat/linux/etc/alsa/pcm/pcm-oss.conf
> 
> pcm.oss1 {
> type oss
> device /dev/dsp1
> hint {
> description "Open Sound System"
> }
> }
> 
> ctl.oss1 {
> type oss
> device /dev/mixer1
> hint {
> description "Open Sound System"
> }
> 

How does /compat/linux/etc/asound.conf look?
Does it mention "oss" anywhere?

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Sound problems with skype in FreeBSD home.encontacto.net 9.1-STABLE FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE #410 r246209M: Sat Feb 16 05:07:32 CST 2013 fr amd64

[CeDeROM]

Hey, try using dsp0 and mixer0 if you use this device, or create link from
bsd alsa config (from /etc... to /compat...). Setting default pcm to 1 with
sysctl will produce sound on another device :-)

--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: some issues with /usr/sbin/service

[Alfred Bartsch]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Am 17.02.2013 08:54, schrieb Xin Li:
> On 2/16/13 10:24 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 16 February 2013 18:08, Gary Palmer  
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 05:38:56PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
 On 16 February 2013 17:05, Paul Mather 
  wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:23:33PM +0400, Boris
>> Samorodov wrote:
>>> 16.02.2013 01:32, Jeremy Chadwick ??:
>>> 
 Follow up -- I read Alfred's most recent mail.  Lo
 and behold, I find this in /var/log/messages (but
 such did not come to my terminal):
 
 Feb 15 13:26:20 icarus jdc: /usr/sbin/service:
 WARNING: $svnserve_enable is not set properly - see
 rc.conf(5). Feb 15 13:26:20 icarus jdc:
 /usr/sbin/service: WARNING: $smartd_enable is not set
 properly - see rc.conf(5). Feb 15 13:26:20 icarus
 jdc: /usr/sbin/service: WARNING: $rsyncd_enable is
 not set properly - see rc.conf(5). Feb 15 13:26:20
 icarus jdc: /usr/sbin/service: WARNING: 
 $htcacheclean_enable is not set properly - see 
 rc.conf(5). Feb 15 13:26:20 icarus jdc: 
 /usr/sbin/service: WARNING: $fetchmail_enable is not 
 set properly - see rc.conf(5).
 
 Cute.  Agreed -- this is unacceptable on two levels
 (as I see it):
 
 1) These messages should be going to stdout or
 stderr in some way, so honestly logger(8) should be
 called with the "-s" flag (IMO).
>>> 
>>> Fully agreed here.
>> 
>> It turns out logger -s has no effect, just like how the 
>> echo 1>&2 statements in warn() and err() have no effect 
>> either (these should be outputting the warnings in
>> question to stderr) -- see rc.subr's source for what I'm
>> referring to.
>> 
>> Gary and I have been discussing this off-list and the 
>> reason has been found: service(8) has this code in it:
>> 
>> checkyesno $rcvar 2>/dev/null && echo $file
>> 
>> This explains why there's no warn() or err() output on
>> the terminal -- it's being redirected to /dev/null
>> prior.
>> 
>> I do not know who maintains the rc(8) and rc.subr(8) 
>> framework, but they've got their work cut out for them.
>> 
>> (Note: the echo statements in warn() and err() could be 
>> replaced with "logger -s" as I said; this would allow
>> the "echo 1>&2" to be removed)
>> 
 2) These messages should not be displayed at all
 (i.e. lack of an xxx_enable variable should imply 
 xxx_enable="no").
>>> 
>>> I see this message as one more level of supervision.
>>> 
>>> If undefined at /etc/make.conf the value of xxx_enable
>>> is "no" from the system's POV (i.e. the service is not 
>>> strarted). From the admininstrators's POV the port was 
>>> installed BUT is not used. It's up to admininstrator 
>>> whether it's OK or not -- just let him remind.
>> 
>> I believe the point you're trying to make is that the 
>> warning in question should 'act as a reminder to the 
>> administrator that they need to set xxx_enable="yes" in 
>> rc.conf'.
>> 
>> If not: please explain if you could what you mean,
>> because I don't understand.
>> 
>> If so: I strongly disagree with this method of approach,
>> as what you've proposed is a borderline straw man
>> argument.
>> 
>> Reminding the admin to set xxx_enable is presently done 
>> inside most ports' pkg-message.  IMO, this should really
>> be done inside bsd.port.mk when USE_RC_SUBR is used,
>> emitting a message during install that says something
>> like:
>> 
>> To enable the xxx service, please add the following to 
>> /etc/rc.conf: xxx_enable="yes"
>> 
>> Of course, I don't know if this would work for packages.
>> 
>> The current message for 
>> is this:
>> 
>> WARNING: $xxx_enable is not set properly - see
>> rc.conf(5).
>> 
>> The message is entirely misleading for this specific 
>> situation; it isn't "reminding" an administrator -- if 
>> anything it's confusing them (thread is case in point).
>> If we're going to cater to ignorance, then the message
>> should reflect the situation.
>> 
>> Thus IMO, this is what ***should*** happen:
>> 
>> Definition in rc.confBehaviour/result 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> myprog_enable="yes"  emit no warnings, service
>> should run myprog_enable="no"   emit no warnings,
>> service should not run myprog_enable="abc123"   emit a
>> warning, service should not run 
>> emit no warnings, service should not run
> 
> 
> I think case 4 ("") is a case where a
> warning should be em

Re: Panic at shutdown

[David Demelier]

2013/2/14 David Demelier 

> Le mardi 12 février 2013 21:42:01 Ronald Klop a écrit :
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:44:49 +0100, David Demelier
> >
> >  wrote:
> > > Le mardi 12 février 2013 10:01:10 Andriy Gapon a écrit :
> > >> on 12/02/2013 09:57 David Demelier said the following:
> > >> > Yes I have added debugging option in my kernel. I have makeoptions
> > >> > DEBUG=-g in my config. Do I need more ?
> > >>
> > >> .symbols?
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you are saying, I have
> > > /boot/kernel/kernel.symbols.
> > > Please tell me what I'm doing wrong. I've just read and done the steps
> > > written
> > > there :
> > >
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug-
> > > gdb.html
> > >
> > > So I've run
> > >
> > > # cd /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/Melon
> > > # kgdb kernel.debug /var/crash/vmcore.0
> >
> > Why not something like kgdb /boot/kernel/kernel.symbols
> > /var/crash/vmcore.0?
> > That looks like what the manual page of kgdb seems to suggest.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ronald.
> >
> > > and that's the only trace I get using bt full :
> > >
> > > 229 #define IS_BSP()(PCPU_GET(cpuid) == 0)
> > > (kgdb) bt full
> > > #0  doadump (textdump=) at pcpu.h:229
> > > No locals.
> > > #1  0x in ?? ()
> > > No symbol table info available.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Demelier
> > > ___
> > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
> >
> > ___
> > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
> "
>
> Today I have a little bit more :
>
> #0  0x804f358b in isbufbusy (bp=0xfe0003810480) at
> /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:280
> 280 if (((bp->b_flags & (B_INVAL | B_PERSISTENT)) == 0 &&
> (kgdb) bt full
> #0  0x804f358b in isbufbusy (bp=0xfe0003810480) at
> /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:280
> No locals.
> #1  0x0004 in ?? ()
> No symbol table info available.
> #2  0x804f3aa6 in kern_reboot (howto=260) at
> /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:451
> _ep = (struct eventhandler_entry *) 0x100
> _el = (struct eventhandler_list *) 0x804f35b3
> first_buf_printf = 1
> #3  0x804f3f69 in panic (fmt=Variable "fmt" is not available.
> ) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:624
> td = (struct thread *) 0x1
> bootopt = 260
> newpanic = 1
> ap = {{gp_offset = 16, fp_offset = 48, overflow_arg_area =
> 0xff80daaf0420, reg_save_area = 0xff80daaf0350}}
> panic_cpu = 0
> buf = "general protection fault", '\0' 
> #4  0x806fcf69 in trap_fatal (frame=0x9, eva=Variable "eva" is not
> available.
> ) at /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c:851
> code = Variable "code" is not available.
>
>
I feel very very ashamed because these random panics were occurring because
of my kernel config that contained drm and radeondrm devices while I use
x11/nvidia-driver.. However, I think we should add a notice in the
nvidia-driver pkg-message to prevent any problems?

-- 
Demelier David
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Chris Rees]

On 19 Feb 2013 14:23, "Mikhail T."  wrote:
>
> 18.02.2013 15:26, Chris Rees написав(ла):
>>
>> I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly,
>> and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be
>> highly sensitive to minute changes.
>
> No, Chris... I do not understand this wonderfully PR-esque response. See,
my understanding always was, the only possible reasons for a compiler to
produce a non-starting executable are:
> The code is buggy.
> The compiler is buggy.
> Both of the above.
> My question was, which is it?

My answer is that it is almost certainly (b).

You are welcome to ask upstream about it, but I doubt they would show much
interest in such an old compiler.

I think it's insanity that we still use this version for ports by default,
but never mind.

Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Installing FreeBSD 9.1 amd64 on IBM x3550 M3

[Ivan Voras]

On 11/02/2013 12:23, Panagiotis Christias wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm trying to install FreeBSD 9.1 amd64 on an IBM x3550 M3 server.
> Installation went smoothly, RAID controller and network cards were
> successfully recognised.

How stable is it? I may have a problem manifesting in random reboots
with a similar machine.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

18.02.2013 15:26, Chris Rees ???(??):
> I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly,
> and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be
> highly sensitive to minute changes.
No, Chris... I do not understand this wonderfully PR-esque response.
See, my understanding always was, the only possible reasons for a
compiler to produce a non-starting executable are:

 1. The code is buggy.
 2. The compiler is buggy.
 3. Both of the above.

My question was, which is it?

19.02.2013 00:35, Kevin Oberman ???(??):
> Just for the record, is find that it works fine for me with gcc-4.6.
> 9.1-STABLE on i386 system. Building it with the default compiler
> results in a successful build, but the program would simply exit after
> a few seconds with no error. The exist status was 0. No messages. When
> I built with 4.6, it builds and runs fine
Yes, 4.6 is supposed to work and is supported by the office@ team. My
question was about 4.2.1, which happens to be the base cc/c++ in 8.x and
in 9.x as well, if world was built WITHOUT_CLANG. I too observe the
4.2.1-compiled office die at start-up -- the splash screen starts nicely
and exits after kicking off the actual soffice.bin which segfaults.

-mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

[John Baldwin]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 11:31:11 pm Marc Fournier wrote:
> 
> Trying the patch now … but what do you mean by using 'SIGSTOP'?  I generally
> do a 'kill -HUP' then when that doesn't work 'kill -9' … should Iuse -STOP
> instead of 9?

No.  This patch only helps if you are using kill -STOP to pause processes and
later resume them.  If you aren't doing that, then the suspension could be due
to a different cause.  Please try this patch instead and let me know if you
see any of the 'Deferring' messages on the console:

Index: kern_thread.c
===
--- kern_thread.c   (revision 246122)
+++ kern_thread.c   (working copy)
@@ -794,7 +794,30 @@ thread_suspend_check(int return_instead)
(p->p_flag & P_SINGLE_BOUNDARY) && return_instead)
return (ERESTART);
 
+#if 0
/*
+* Ignore suspend requests for stop signals if they
+* are deferred.
+*/
+   if (P_SHOULDSTOP(p) == P_STOPPED_SIG &&
+   td->td_flags & TDF_SBDRY) {
+   KASSERT(return_instead,
+   ("TDF_SBDRY set for unsafe thread_suspend_check"));
+   return (0);
+   }
+#else
+   /* Ignore syspend requests if stops are deferred. */
+   if (td->td_flags & TDF_SBDRY) {
+   if (!return_instead)
+   panic("TDF_SBDRY set, but return_instead not");
+   if (P_SHOULDSTOP(p) != P_STOPPED_SIG)
+   printf("Deferring non-STOP suspension: 
SHOULDSTOP: %x p_flag %x\n",
+   P_SHOULDSTOP(p), p->p_flag);
+   return (0);
+   }
+#endif
+
+   /*
 * If the process is waiting for us to exit,
 * this thread should just suicide.
 * Assumes that P_SINGLE_EXIT implies P_STOPPED_SINGLE.



-- 
John Baldwin
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 09:45, Chris Rees wrote:
>> a. The code is buggy.
>> b. The compiler is buggy.
>> c.Both of the above.
>>My question was, which is it?
>
> My answer is that it is almost certainly (b).

Are there identified, known problems with the version? From what little I've 
heard, our cc had some bug-fixes merged-in from newer versions. For example, 
graphics/vigra now compiles fine with the stock cc in 9.1, whereas it used to 
need a newer one.


Maybe, there are already fixes available for whatever is needed for the office 
to build properly as well? The older version may be allowed to miss some 
optimization opportunities or be less descriptive in warnings, but it must 
produce valid binaries from valid code [Captain Obvious hat off]


> You are welcome to ask upstream about it, but I doubt they would show
> much interest in such an old compiler.

Upstream gcc? They may not be very interested, indeed, but it is FreeBSD, that 
delivered this compiler to me -- in the most recent stable version of the OS. 
This is why I'm asking stable@'s opinion on the matter...


We aren't really so bad, BTW -- Red Hat Enterprise 5.7 (the latest in their 5.x 
line) still has cc, that identifes itself as:


   gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-51)


I think it's insanity that we  still use this version for ports by

> default, but never mind.

I find it perfectly reasonable, that ports use the base cc and c++ by default. 
But I agree, that it is insane, that the base compiler can not compile one of 
the most popular open-source application-suits...


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

The base compiler is supposed to compile base and bootstrap whatever
else you need to compile other software.

It's not supposed to be continuously updated to new, major versions. :-)

I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
They could've made their code compile on older compilers.. they just
haven't bothered.

In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_ that.


Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 09:23 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The base compiler is supposed to compile base and bootstrap whatever
> else you need to compile other software.
> 
> It's not supposed to be continuously updated to new, major versions. :-)
> 
> I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
> things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
> They could've made their code compile on older compilers.. they just
> haven't bothered.
> 
> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
> 4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_ that.

It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
taking steps to make it not-work.

-- Ian


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jakub Lach]

Actually libreoffice builds with base clang and gcc47 from ports.

I don't know about status of base gcc compiler.



--
View this message in context: 
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-can-t-gcc-4-2-1-build-usable-libreoffice-tp5786977p5788485.html
Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: new jail(8) ignoring devfs_ruleset?

[Jamie Gritton]

On 02/18/13 09:29, Mateusz Guzik wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:26:42AM -0700, Jamie Gritton wrote:

On 02/18/13 01:54, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:

  schrieb Jamie Gritton am 16.02.2013 00:40 (localtime):

On 02/15/13 09:27, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:

   Hello,

like already posted, on 9.1-R, I highly appreciate the new jail(8) and
jail.conf capabilities. Thanks for that extension!

Accidentally I saw that "devfs_ruleset" seems to be ignored.
If I list /dev/ I see all the hosts disk devices etc.
I set "devfs_ruleset = 4;" and "enforce_statfs = 1;" in jail.conf.
Inside the jail,
sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset returnes "1".
But like mentioned, I can access all devices...

Thanks for any help,

-Harry


devfs_ruleset is only used along with mount.devfs - do you also have
that set in jail.conf?


Thanks for your response.

Yes, I have mount.devfs; set.
Otherwise I wouldn't have any device inside my jail. Verified - and like
intended, right?
Another notable discrepancy: The man page tells that devfs_rulset is "4"
by default.
But when I don't set devfs_rulset in jail.conf at all, inside the jail,
'sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset': 0
When set, like mentioned above, it returns the corresponding value, but
it doesn't have any effect.
How gets devfs_rulset handled? Does jail(8) do the whole job? I'd like
to help finding the source, but have missed the whole new jail evolution...
Inside my jails, I don't have a fstab, outside I have them defined and
enabled with "mount" - and noticed the non-reverted umounting.


I found the problem - I noticed you mentioned 9.1-R, and took a look at
devfs(5). On CURRENT, there's a mount option "ruleset", that isn't there
on 9.

So I'll have to get around it by running devfs(8) after the mount. I'll
work on a patch for that.



Why not MFC support for that mount option instead?


I wasn't quite right about it not being in 9.1. I was looking at my 9.0
desktop, and it's not there. But it was in fact MFCd into 9.1. So I'm
back to saying as long as you use the devfs_ruleset parameter, your
jailed /dev should be correct.

- Jamie
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:

I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was a 
point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org:


   http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo

That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only a 
few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed).


I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we may 
be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. And 
let the healing begin[TM].


I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- 
finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the office@ 
maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the 
requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the 
point of this topic...


On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote:

In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
>4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we_have_  that.

It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
taking steps to make it not-work.
Ian, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not 
work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I 
explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to 
use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do 
deliberately misrepresent my original post?


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 19 February 2013 09:35, Ian Lepore  wrote:

> It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
> 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
> taking steps to make it not-work.

Hence my reply. :-)

OP - "don't do that." The base compiler is for the base system, not
for everything.


Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

.. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
compiler that is known to work with it, and move on. :-)

I re-read your original post. It's likely some queer corner case C++
or C++ library bug as shipped with the base system.


Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:03 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
> > things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
> Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was 
> a 
> point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org:
> 
> http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo
> 
> That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only 
> a 
> few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed).
> 
> I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we 
> may 
> be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. 
> And 
> let the healing begin[TM].
> 
> I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- 
> finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the 
> office@ 
> maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the 
> requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the 
> point of this topic...
> 
> On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote:
> >> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
> >> >4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we_have_  that.
> > It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
> > 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
> > taking steps to make it not-work.
> Ian, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not 
> work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I 
> explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to 
> use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do 
> deliberately misrepresent my original post?
> 
> -mi

Comments such as "compiler people are too cool..." as well as things
such as

> Upstream gcc? They may not be very interested, indeed, but it is
> FreeBSD, that 
> delivered this compiler to me -- in the most recent stable version of
> the OS. 
> 
and
> 
> But I agree, that it is insane, that the base compiler can not compile
> one of 
> the most popular open-source application-suits...

All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a
mis-characterization to you, then I apologize.

Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.  Maintainers of
large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in supporting
a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer
versions.  The reasonable solution is to use a newer compiler to compile
newer ports, and put ongoing maintenance efforts into solidifying the
replacement compiler rather than propping up the buggy old one.

-- Ian


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 13:19, Ian Lepore wrote:

All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a
mis-characterization to you, then I apologize.
These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after I 
broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the 
office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- comments in 
the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyone, for example. 
It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failures... I don't think, 
such "going with the flow" is responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of 
building a special compiler just for the office will return...


Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the base 
compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and documented 
somewhere else?

Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.

Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in mind?

Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in 
supporting
LibreOffice's own Native_Build page 
 makes no mention 
of a required compiler version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a 
required feature, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with 
LibreOffice could've been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the 
toolchain, that are at fault...

a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions.
So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and that 
little can be done about it.


Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers shipped 
as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recent stable 
versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and thus unable to 
process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy -- processing those 
features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our errata 
 about it...


On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:

.. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
compiler that is known to work with it, and move on.


Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based system, don't 
you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS in the port is large, 
and a lot of people are likely to build their own. Not because they like  it, 
but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) interface or...


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Chris Rees]

Somehow attribution has been screwed here-- I will perhaps blame the
appalling Android Gmail app that I used to reply to an earlier
message.

On 19 February 2013 18:54, Mikhail T.  wrote:

> These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after I 
> broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the 
> office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- comments 
> in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyone, for 
> example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failures... I 
> don't think, such "going with the flow" is responsible and am afraid, the 
> inglorious days of building a special compiler just for the office will 
> return...

I'm sorry that you feel that the maintainers of Libreoffice have taken
an easy route; you can certainly show them how easy it is to do by
providing some patches/fixes, or working with upstream.  I don't see
how anyone on freebsd-stable@ will either be interested or
knowledgeable in Libreoffice internals.

> Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the base 
> compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and documented 
> somewhere else?
>
> Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.
>
> Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in mind?

GPLv3.

>> Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in 
>> supporting
>> LibreOffice's own Native_Build page makes no mention of a required compiler 
>> version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a required feature, 
>> it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with LibreOffice could've 
>> been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the toolchain, that are at 
>> fault...
>
>> a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions.
>
> So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and that 
> little can be done about it.

That is why we're replacing it with LLVM/Clang.

> Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers 
> shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recent 
> stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and thus 
> unable to process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy -- 
> processing those features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our 
> errata about it...

It is no secret that our base compiler is old.  What do you think
happens in newer versions, if not added features and bugfixes?

> On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> .. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
>> compiler that is known to work with it, and move on.
>
>
> Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based system, 
> don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS in the port is 
> large, and a lot of people are likely to build their own. Not because they 
> like  it, but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) 
> interface or...

Irrelevant.  You choosing to compile with a different compiler adds no
value and can't be compared with a different interface.

Please fix it yourself, or talk to upstream.

Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:54 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> > Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.
> Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in
> mind? 

Versions of gcc after the 4.2.1 version we use are licensed under GPLv3.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand all the fine details of why
GPLv3 is bad for the freebsd project, but I accept the analysis and
decisions the project made on that subject some time ago.  

As you might imagine, switching to a new compiler isn't something you
decide to do this afternoon and finish up tomorrow with a big checkin.
It takes many months of testing and iteratively fixing bugs... bugs
found in the new compiler, and bugs the new compiler exposes in the
existing source base.

I think we've been able to cherry-pick a few specific fixes from gcc
upstream that weren't encumbered by GPLv3, but for the most part I think
nobody is actively maintaining the GPLv2 code anymore.

-- Ian


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jung-uk Kim]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-02-19 12:23:07 -0500, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires
> gcc 4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_
> that.

The short answer is we cannot support gcc 4.6+ unless we have a
dedicated *ports* compiler.

Okay, it seems to be a FAQ now and I'll try to explain as much as I
can.  If you have binaries compiled with g++ from ports tree, those
binaries should not be linked with binaries that are compiled with the
base compiler because they pull in different libstdc++ and friends and
they have different ABIs.  Also, some C++ libraries are very
"sensitive" to standard C++ libraries, e.g., Boost.  On top of that,
UNO C++ bridge is really tightly coupled with C++ runtime. [1]
Some libraries come with configuration headers and they are usually
coupled with *build* environment, not *runtime* environment.  So on
and so forth.  You see, that's why we had numerous build failure
reports for LibreOffice in C++ unit tests. [2]

Traditionally, OpenOffice.org builds everything from bundled libraries
and headers so that it is almost self-contained.  For example, STLport
is used as a C++ STL library by default.  This model makes perfect
sense for a stand-alone downloadable package because the build
environment may be very different from runtime environment.  LO has
kinda opposite philosophy, i.e., modular is better.  This model works
well if users are using prebuilt packages, i.e., Linux distros. [3]

What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for sure is
we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.

Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.

Jung-uk Kim

1.  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Uno

2.  Most of them are actually legit but I gave up on explaining why
and turned them off by default.  If you had build failure before, now
you may experience runtime failures instead, sorry.

3.  We may go back to monolithic build model, perhaps.  Not sure.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRI883AAoJECXpabHZMqHO+6gH/2uvg/KTlsHKuxGG1XGPjJct
icKy/nsCJK9XkkNaA3O7Zkpiddb1y2TNf9WW+/NmttfsnZ2aMos1jBnfIBr9l+ny
Gw8V09JXOtUj1Ew3QZRF0efXz0sB7C37jEEeJWgF6IB4spq+BLAriCKShsa8bh+p
PTwbE+ooib5Pzyf9NWIHzATiykeC1pSHz+3lnRhpNv9TFawcHsGyOfJRmr37eefO
jodUWXzbJivCMFteWBaZwUHJkWVfMq4h+sdUyui0dP+T1EULQPpafNNkFkPcHthA
dZzFfYGKgUjqn7PfO4B8wK5wqb/mO1rxgQ7NPQMla30PCN6iy9mNCFnMaR/nrzw=
=PgIy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 14:15, Jung-uk Kim wrote:

What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for sure is
we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.

Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.
Well, support for "every possible" combination is, of course, a toll order, but 
support for the base cc/c++ is a reasonable expectation, in my opinion...


And if there is a *good* reason to reject the base compiler, I'd expect such 
good reason to be documented -- preferably with bug-reports filed against either 
the FreeBSD and its toolchain or against the LibreOffice code. Or both...


On 19.02.2013 14:21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:

There are damn good reasons all my systems have
WITHOUT_CLANG=true in src.conf.
Actually, clang, whatever faults you may have seen in it, would've produced a 
working libreoffice build. But it is not the cc/c++ on 9.1 and 8.3...


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jung-uk Kim]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-02-19 14:31:02 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 14:15, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for
>> sure is we cannot support every possible build/runtime
>> environment.
>> 
>> Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.
> Well, support for "every possible" combination is, of course, a
> toll order, but support for the base cc/c++ is a reasonable
> expectation, in my opinion...

Actually, I tried very hard to build sane LO with gcc 4.2 but it
wasn't fruitful.  Eventually, I gave up on adding kludges after
kludges because LO is moving away from pre-C++11 compilers anyway. :-(

> And if there is a *good* reason to reject the base compiler, I'd
> expect such good reason to be documented -- preferably with
> bug-reports filed against either the FreeBSD and its toolchain or
> against the LibreOffice code. Or both...

I believe there were plenty PRs already.

Jung-uk Kim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRI9ZdAAoJECXpabHZMqHOetMH+gMVJvAdp9x8jSzqvZQoaw28
fXoyNunlPTMq5U1sBzL1ZURm1nPwSutlAp5dccd4oRWQUXZ5uf09vNP8hI02cXz6
xteVQXtPEYYbkk6ySlpUfCl/Xostr1vkzT1a52KwGK8VHZsV41SXZEEylbBmTRfx
ikoSpwQGBo8M6IpdrI29cfUWriajMSqXGYqNMFsloGj7kJVY/WKSe1OGraPtQMwR
Y61255VJ83tpYo7a0HGSAKEOXCGLNg8cvXNG3F7bz/rP9eikbIvx8CYYWFPQ8IrO
gB7l1Nz4XL0Z5J9jUi/QZ+dl/gM/OthaKH05WkTimmJJvlBfxphWkrELgJUwmPM=
=hTpo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:15:03PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> The short answer is we cannot support gcc 4.6+ unless we have a
> dedicated *ports* compiler.
> {blah blah}
> What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for sure is
> we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.
> 
> Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.

Ideas and thoughts:

1. Do away with the base system concept.  Yup, my usual broken record
commentary.  The sooner FreeBSD does away with this the better.  Do not
tell me "there are too many [compiler] possibilities to take into
account", because...

2. Go look at DragonflyBSD and how they did it.  As of February 2013 gcc
4.6 is their stock compiler (with gcc 4.4 also available because some
ports don't build with 4.6), and their build infrastructure tests
everything ("base system" as well as all their packages/ports).  Here
are references for my statements:

http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2013/02/07/11175.html
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2013-February/129381.html
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-December/017701.html

As for "licensing concerns" with DFBSD and gcc, see these (comments are
worth reading here too):

http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2012/10/02/10481.html
http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2007/12/09/2557.html

The DFBSD license:

http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/developer/DragonFly_BSD_License/

If another BSD can play nice with a ""conflicting"" (note excessive use
of quotes) license, then why can't FreeBSD?  Who within the Project is
calling these shots?  Licensing zealotism benefits no user, but I can
see it benefiting certain companies whose commercial products are
reliant on FreeBSD.  So out with it already.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick   j...@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administratorhttp://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Mountain View, CA, US|
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 14:45, Jung-uk Kim wrote:

Actually, I tried very hard to build sane LO with gcc 4.2 but it
wasn't fruitful.  Eventually, I gave up on adding kludges after
kludges because LO is moving away from pre-C++11 compilers anyway.:-(

Should not a pre-C++11 compiler simply /fail/ upon encountering C++11 code?

>And if there is a*good*  reason to reject the base compiler, I'd
>expect such good reason to be documented -- preferably with
>bug-reports filed against either the FreeBSD and its toolchain or
>against the LibreOffice code. Or both...
I believe there were plenty PRs already.
I can not find any :-( The ones against FreeBSD 
 
all talk about build failures (except the 176269 
, filed today). There 
are no relevant bug-reports against LibreOffice, that mention "gcc-4.2.1" 
 or "gcc 
4.2.1 ".


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Licensing zealotism (Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?)

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 14:54, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:

Licensing zealotism benefits no user, but I can
see it benefiting certain companies whose commercial products are
reliant on FreeBSD.  So out with it already.
But support from (and even mere adoption by) large companies benefits FreeBSD in 
a number of ways.


In any case, this is a matter for a separate thread, if any.

   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

bluray recorder

[CeDeROM]

Hello :-)

I have just bought a Pioneer 15x BluRay recorder. I saw something like
below in the dmesg, I cannot access video with VLC, should I worry
about that? I guess recording files can be done just as for DVD with
growisofs? :-)

(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): READ DVD STRUCTURE. CDB: ad 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): CAM status: SCSI Status Error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI status: Check Condition
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI sense: ILLEGAL REQUEST asc:24,0 (Invalid field in CDB)
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): Error 22, Unretryable error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): READ DVD STRUCTURE. CDB: ad 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): CAM status: SCSI Status Error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI status: Check Condition
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI sense: ILLEGAL REQUEST asc:24,0 (Invalid field in CDB)
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): Error 22, Unretryable error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): READ DVD STRUCTURE. CDB: ad 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): CAM status: SCSI Status Error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI status: Check Condition
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI sense: ILLEGAL REQUEST asc:24,0 (Invalid field in CDB)
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): Error 22, Unretryable error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): READ DVD STRUCTURE. CDB: ad 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): CAM status: SCSI Status Error
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI status: Check Condition
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): SCSI sense: ILLEGAL REQUEST asc:24,0 (Invalid field in CDB)
(cd2:ata0:0:1:0): Error 22, Unretryable error

Any hints welcome :-)
Tomek

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: new jail(8) ignoring devfs_ruleset?

[Jeremie Le Hen]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:54:42AM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
>  schrieb Jamie Gritton am 16.02.2013 00:40 (localtime):
> > On 02/15/13 09:27, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> >>   Hello,
> >>
> >> like already posted, on 9.1-R, I highly appreciate the new jail(8) and
> >> jail.conf capabilities. Thanks for that extension!
> >>
> >> Accidentally I saw that "devfs_ruleset" seems to be ignored.
> >> If I list /dev/ I see all the hosts disk devices etc.
> >> I set "devfs_ruleset = 4;" and "enforce_statfs = 1;" in jail.conf.
> >>Inside the jail,
> >> sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset returnes "1".
> >> But like mentioned, I can access all devices...
> >>
> >> Thanks for any help,
> >>
> >> -Harry
> >
> > devfs_ruleset is only used along with mount.devfs - do you also have
> > that set in jail.conf?
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> Yes, I have mount.devfs; set.
> Otherwise I wouldn't have any device inside my jail. Verified - and like
> intended, right?
> Another notable discrepancy: The man page tells that devfs_rulset is "4"
> by default.
> But when I don't set devfs_rulset in jail.conf at all, inside the jail,
> 'sysctl security.jail.devfs_ruleset': 0
> When set, like mentioned above, it returns the corresponding value, but
> it doesn't have any effect.
> How gets devfs_rulset handled? Does jail(8) do the whole job? I'd like
> to help finding the source, but have missed the whole new jail evolution...
> Inside my jails, I don't have a fstab, outside I have them defined and
> enabled with "mount" - and noticed the non-reverted umounting.

Look at what's in /dev from you jail.  There should a few pseudo
devices (see below), but no real devices:

$ ls /dev
crypto  log ptmxrandom  stdin   urandom zfs
fd  nullpts stderr  stdout  zero


-- 
Jeremie Le Hen

Scientists say the world is made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons.
They forgot to mention Morons.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Zhihao Yuan]

There is no problem with everything that I can think of, and I tried every
thread in the mailing list/forum, and the only problem is, nothing works.

http://twipic.com/c56lmz

(taken from the shell on the install CD)

-- 
Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
___
4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jung-uk Kim]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-02-19 15:05:13 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 14:45, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> Actually, I tried very hard to build sane LO with gcc 4.2 but it 
>> wasn't fruitful.  Eventually, I gave up on adding kludges after 
>> kludges because LO is moving away from pre-C++11 compilers
>> anyway. :-(
> Should not a pre-C++11 compiler simply /fail/ upon encountering
> C++11 code?

configure script detects the C++ compiler and sets various compiler
flags.  It basically tries to work around *known* issues as much as
possible.  However, it does not cover every possible combination.
"Moving away" means "not actively tested".

>>> And if there is a *good* reason to reject the base compiler,
>>> I'd expect such good reason to be documented -- preferably
>>> with bug-reports filed against either the FreeBSD and its
>>> toolchain or against the LibreOffice code. Or both...
>> I believe there were plenty PRs already.
> I can not find any :-( The ones against FreeBSD 
> 
>
> 
all talk about build failures (except the 176269
> , filed
> today). There are no relevant bug-reports against LibreOffice, that
> mention "gcc-4.2.1" 
> 
>
> 
or "gcc 4.2.1
> ".

Okay,
> 
sorry.

I really love to build LO with GCC 4.2, too.  I really do.  However, I
don't see much point of mentioning that fact in PR.

Jung-uk Kim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRI/0TAAoJECXpabHZMqHOsy0IANi1KZSRdqARfxJ65r1MLi4a
tQkCq7LmyMNA81ND1GKAatg52UDLF2GN5o9Yw71l/XiYN2JV667aGVaF9e96a789
ONnXRWaGw2DohTH8SpGu81Vstj5Vn/iots4b0bFdhz3HCW6lTgUsqlD/+n3dVVpo
c4MlUAFtEhpqejvsX7g10kPqn8IZwZc7pBUfoeSw1sMIChajxmlfXDlHkvtKwVJu
jHbu2PDMwty2kgJ1kRdYNt5yZXl9chSuSxqy23O5odfHyLWV6+SGk+SOb32MSp7H
/oJ0UdFLFzqwGSqlK7bDOMIyL0yLaPz5WJd8X+HC/BmR5FUugdILe8lHOeJ/rq0=
=ZyWD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Zhihao Yuan]

> http://twipic.com/c56lmz

The URI should be http://twitpic.com/c56lmz


-- 
Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
___
4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Xin LI]

2 = ENOENT.  Were you booting from zfs:zdell/ROOT?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Zhihao Yuan  wrote:
> There is no problem with everything that I can think of, and I tried every
> thread in the mailing list/forum, and the only problem is, nothing works.
>
> http://twipic.com/c56lmz
>
> (taken from the shell on the install CD)
>
> --
> Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
> ___
> 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/
> ___
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"



--
Xin LI  https://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Zhihao Yuan]

Yes, the real root which is mounted to /

--
Zhihao Yuan
On Feb 19, 2013 7:50 PM, "Xin LI"  wrote:

> 2 = ENOENT.  Were you booting from zfs:zdell/ROOT?
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Zhihao Yuan  wrote:
> > There is no problem with everything that I can think of, and I tried
> every
> > thread in the mailing list/forum, and the only problem is, nothing works.
> >
> > http://twipic.com/c56lmz
> >
> > (taken from the shell on the install CD)
> >
> > --
> > Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
> > The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
> > ___
> > 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/
> > ___
> > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
> "
>
>
>
> --
> Xin LI  https://www.delphij.net/
> FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
>
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Having a problem compiling a customized kernel

[Kurt Buff]

I have done a buildworld and a buildkernel, and the latter finished
just fine, so now to see if I can diagnose the problem.

Thanks for the help...

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Jeremy Chadwick  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:09:38AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 2013-02-19 04:48, Kurt Buff wrote:
>> >I'm working on troubleshooting a random network dropout in an older
>> >Acer Aspire One, and am compiling an otherwise generic kernel with the
>> >following options:
>> ...
>> >linking kernel.debug
>> >ld:/usr/src/sys/conf/ldscript.i386:66: syntax error
>> >*** [kernel.debug] Error code 1
>> ...
>> >I'm currently running 9.1-RELEASE - I had to svn the source, as I had
>> >used freebsd-update last couple of weeks to move from 7.2 to 8.0 to
>> >8.3 to 9.0 to 9.1.
>>
>> Please run "make kernel-toolchain" first, as your binutils is too old.
>
> I told him off-list that he needs to follow src/Makefile (specifically
> told him he needs to do "buildworld") to a tee, every time, and
> explained why.
>
> --
> | Jeremy Chadwick   j...@koitsu.org |
> | UNIX Systems Administratorhttp://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
> | Mountain View, CA, US|
> | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Xin Li]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 02/19/13 16:57, Zhihao Yuan wrote:
> Yes, the real root which is mounted to /

Show the error message from root mount (plus what shows up after
?).  It's pretty likely that you have a bad zpool.cache or bad
fstab configuration.

Cheers,
- -- 
Xin LI https://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!   Live free or die
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJRJC4gAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuz13MH/1zl/R4/JM6ofdomWjHNCAJK
lsvQcAsOVkiegSYlQprwqLNmymoNY6HJ2G4f2fYYGoyDwmYORJoxz8bkqpEveC39
CaSI9r2+cJbCu2YkMpCYP2N8LYz2f5puDe4mN+EyUGfWH1OZTVEsPuECgaZtj2D9
jkLVowDyS8qC05xWpYGJ4CQnteRzgr8YwYV4wtbgP5UDtJWoeFEqgHtvi4WQdm5W
SFIUDyTOOr5ziDd5roWuHQbl7CPCAEwV3T9usDNj447jic6+xSCMMfCFKzSyXLOJ
O0leZUXO8U3RzjelAHksb960DU7UBrpI9qhy373W3wJEJNkss3V3iMXlttTz0c0=
=y84X
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Zhihao Yuan]

On Feb 19, 2013 9:00 PM, "Xin Li"  wrote:
> Show the error message from root mount (plus what shows up after
> ?).

http://twitpic.com/c57t9b

After ?, I see a list of gptids and names; nothing mentions 'zfs'.

> It's pretty likely that you have a bad zpool.cache or bad
> fstab configuration.

I suppose I don't need a fstab, since I used the non-legacy plan, as shown
in the RootOnZFS/9.0-RELEASE wiki page.

The (/mnt)/boot/zfs/zpool.cache is copied from /tmp/zpool.cache, which was
created by -o cachefile.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Xin Li]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 2/19/13 6:21 PM, Zhihao Yuan wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2013 9:00 PM, "Xin Li"  wrote:
>> Show the error message from root mount (plus what shows up after 
>> ?).
> 
> http://twitpic.com/c57t9b
> 
> After ?, I see a list of gptids and names; nothing mentions
> 'zfs'.

Did you loaded zfs.ko?

>> It's pretty likely that you have a bad zpool.cache or bad fstab
>> configuration.
> 
> I suppose I don't need a fstab, since I used the non-legacy plan,
> as shown in the RootOnZFS/9.0-RELEASE wiki page.
> 
> The (/mnt)/boot/zfs/zpool.cache is copied from /tmp/zpool.cache,
> which was created by -o cachefile.

This is not correct unless it's the first time and you have never
imported the pool again.  Some recent changes to ZFS mounting code may
have relieved the requirement of keeping zpool.cache but I have not
tested it myself.

Regenerate the zpool.cache with:

zpool set cachefile=/mnt/boot/zfs/zpool.cache zdell

Then sync; sleep 5; sync; then reboot.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRJEe6AAoJEG80Jeu8UPuziI0H+gLLrpAtVyzZZglkBbuntFOJ
CRJJiqpYo1ogTSjIVRAQJKDqg95QTXJfmlCep31LZWGohcENuQLNzvkXyKlC5qVX
h0ROkvqXJ2yli8poH9bydXHfdvF9YuCUHxWnMDTEcRMk4ztLoCvi4DgGArPrdKSV
3cnIJaLXGcAKWqaD39DN+L61I/Db4C9hGANj9FYd4vkTQ9apmfunLEJDSkXOiFNA
hr3ttVaG/2ZdC3EgaNSKBZGNAE3IzcU1s2OpO2bNIemgT3qRkR9ZpPm8NmFujy+q
OSjzIy+MjQR0mIRSdXlZsjAZv39mkdzoflTNp1QDxJHj1h372mRFAFiVnxrj/ZI=
=Bv01
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Mounting from zfs... failed with error 2, again

[Zhihao Yuan]

On Feb 19, 2013 10:49 PM, "Xin Li"  wrote:
> Did you loaded zfs.ko?

Yes, as in loader.conf, zfs_load.

> Regenerate the zpool.cache with:
>
> zpool set cachefile=/mnt/boot/zfs/zpool.cache zdell
>
> Then sync; sleep 5; sync; then reboot.

Without exporting the zpool?

Anyway, I'll give it a try today.  Thanks.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

19.02.2013 17:30, Jung-uk Kim ???(??):
> I really love to build LO with GCC 4.2, too.  I really do.  However, I
> don't see much point of mentioning that fact in PR.
You mentioned earlier, that you "believe there were plenty PRs already".
Are the patches contained in them currently in the port's files/
subdirectory?

I'd like to see, where I can get with LibreOffice people -- but I don't
want to file duplicate PRs, obviously...

-mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 19.02.13 20:54, Mikhail T. wrote:
My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the 
office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- 
comments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with 
anyone, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze 
the failures... I don't think, such "going with the flow" is 
responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of building a special 
compiler just for the office will return...


Neither of these "best open source office suites" is supposed to be 
built from source, by the "normal" user. As already mentioned, normal 
users are guided to use the pre-compiled binaries. The reasons for this 
are many and different. Only one of the reasons is that those ports are 
rather complex and let's not forget it - buggy. They more or less 
require special build environments, which are easier provided, as you 
guessed it, by an purposely configured compiler. Since the ports 
themselves are huge, compiling an relatively small compiler for the 
purpose to build the rest is ok. Count it as 'bootstrap' process. I for 
one, don't buy your argument that the makefile lacks enough "evidence" 
of why certain choices were made - it is an file with instructions for 
the computer, after all. Humans discuss these things at other places.




Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the 
compilers shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating 
system's most recent stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy?


As already mentioned, the compilers in the base exist in order to 
compile FreeBSD and bootstrap other compilers. For that purpose, even 
the ancient gcc does the job. It even does the job for many, many ports 
as well. Nobody has ever made the promise that the base cc will compile 
any source code thrown at it.


Because it is buggy and because newer versions have different license, 
that doesn't fit well with FreeBSD, gcc is being phased out from FreeBSD 
and replaced by llvm/clang. Still a work in progress and might not be 
complete for 10.0.



On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:

.. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
compiler that is known to work with it, and move on.


Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based 
system, don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS 
in the port is large, and a lot of people are likely to build their 
own. Not because they like  it, but because they want a PostgreSQL 
driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) interface or...




This is why it exists as source code and FreeBSD port. I myself build 
all software from source, whatever it takes. And if it requires that I 
have dozen of special-purpose gcc versions built in the process, I don't 
care.


For people with less resources and patience, there is the precompiled 
binary package. An RPM-like technology.


Daniel
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"