Re: Compile error
just a thought, but update nroff ? GNU nroff (groff) version 1.17 works fine for me... At 08:29 30.07.2001 -0500, mick wrote: Anyone know what component I'm missing: # make setup check nroff -man qmail-clean.8 qmail-clean.0 troff: fatal error: can't find macro file tty-char make: *** [qmail-clean.0] Error 1 Thanks * Mick Dobra Systems Administrator MTCO Communications 1-800-859-6826 * At 08:29 30.07.2001 -0500, mick wrote: Anyone know what component I'm missing: # make setup check nroff -man qmail-clean.8 qmail-clean.0 troff: fatal error: can't find macro file tty-char make: *** [qmail-clean.0] Error 1 Thanks * Mick Dobra Systems Administrator MTCO Communications 1-800-859-6826 * -- --/-/-- Lukas Beeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\-\-- \ \ My HomePage: URL:http://www.projectdream.org / /
Re: Compile error
I have nroff 1.17 installed. Ran make with the -k option, continue running after errors. Compiled fine, just no man pages. On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Lukas Beeler wrote: just a thought, but update nroff ? GNU nroff (groff) version 1.17 works fine for me... At 08:29 30.07.2001 -0500, mick wrote: Anyone know what component I'm missing: # make setup check nroff -man qmail-clean.8 qmail-clean.0 troff: fatal error: can't find macro file tty-char make: *** [qmail-clean.0] Error 1 Thanks * Mick Dobra Systems Administrator MTCO Communications 1-800-859-6826 * At 08:29 30.07.2001 -0500, mick wrote: Anyone know what component I'm missing: # make setup check nroff -man qmail-clean.8 qmail-clean.0 troff: fatal error: can't find macro file tty-char make: *** [qmail-clean.0] Error 1 Thanks * Mick Dobra Systems Administrator MTCO Communications 1-800-859-6826 * -- --/-/-- Lukas Beeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\-\-- \ \ My HomePage: URL:http://www.projectdream.org / / * Mick Dobra Systems Administrator MTCO Communications 1-800-859-6826 *
Re: Compile error
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:29:01AM -0500, mick wrote: Anyone know what component I'm missing: # make setup check nroff -man qmail-clean.8 qmail-clean.0 troff: fatal error: can't find macro file tty-char make: *** [qmail-clean.0] Error 1 I have /usr/share/groff/tmac/tmac.tty-char on my redhat machine rpm -qf /usr/share/groff/tmac/tmac.tty-char groff-1.16.1-7 -- Grtz, Arjen.
Re: compile error
* Kenneth [EMAIL PROTECTED] I encountered the following error in compiling qmail in my redhat 7.1 machine. Appreciate any idea to solve this problem. Did you create the user alias? -- Kjetil
Re: compile error
On 2001.07.17 10:31 Kenneth wrote: Hello all, I encountered the following error in compiling qmail in my redhat 7.1 machine. Appreciate any idea to solve this problem. # make setup check ( ./auto-uid auto_uida `head -1 conf-users` \ ./auto-uid auto_uidd `head -2 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-uid auto_uidl `head -3 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-uid auto_uido `head -4 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-uid auto_uidp `head -5 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-uid auto_uidq `head -6 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-uid auto_uidr `head -7 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-uid auto_uids `head -8 conf-users | tail -1` \ ./auto-gid auto_gidq `head -1 conf-groups` \ ./auto-gid auto_gidn `head -2 conf-groups | tail -1` \ ) auto_uids.c.tmp mv auto_uids.c.tmp auto_uids.c fatal: unable to find user alias make: *** [auto_uids.c] Error 111 Thanks in advance. -- Best regards, Kenneth mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Seems you forgot to add the user alias.. Check /etc/passwd to make sure the user exsists.. If not you may want to use useradd qmaild -g nofiles -d /var/qmail -s /nonexistent.. I'm assuming you have added all other necessary groups and users.. If not check the 'Life with Qmail' documentaiton (http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html). -- Jake Roersma Network Engineer Triton Technologies Inc. (800)-837-4253/364-8761
Re: Compile error Courier-imap
your OS is solaris ? - Original Message - From: "The Afif" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: Compile error Courier-imap Dear Miliser, I have some probelm when I compile courier-imap, the error message when I compile is like this [afif@dodol courier-imap-1.3.3]$ ./configure checking whether the C++ compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C++ compiler cannot cre ate executables. configure: error: ./configure failed for bdbobj need your solution pls Tks regards, The Afif mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Compile Error
Nope.. Even that won't be a 100 % (so I found). You may need to modify : conf-cc and conf-ld to point to gcc instead of cc Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Greg Owen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:30 AM To: qmail Subject: RE: Compile Error to compile qmail. I received the error '/usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed' '*** Error code 1' 'make: Fatal error: Command failed for target 'qmail-local.o' '. What does this mean and how can I get around this? It means that Solaris ships without a C compiler, so you can't compile anything. To fix it, either purchase Sun's compiler, or download a precompiled version of GCC for Solaris. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Compile Error
Matt Soffen wrote: Greg Owen wrote: It means that Solaris ships without a C compiler, so you can't compile anything. To fix it, either purchase Sun's compiler, or download a precompiled version of GCC for Solaris. Nope.. Even that won't be a 100 % (so I found). You may need to modify : conf-cc and conf-ld to point to gcc instead of cc Correct. You also need to avoid /usr/ucblib like the plague, and other niceties. There's a Solaris FAQ somewhere that gives the rundown on all the stupid things Sun did on Solaris from a development point of view - the compiler, the tools, the libs. The original poster, if interested in compiling anything under Solaris, should track that down (anyone remember which FAQ that is?) and read it carefully. I apologize; I was being unduly terse in my first message ;. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: compile error
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: Greg Hudson writes: As to Russell Nelson's assertion that "int main" is a gratuitous innovation in C, I think that he's confused. In 1st edition KR, main() wasn't treated as a subroutine, was never declared "int main", and there was no discussion of the meaning of a return value from main. Was I confused or not? No you weren't. The second edition *does* address return from main(). The first two paragraphs (which I don't feel like typing in) on page 26 cover it - the gist of it is that "programs should return status to their environment." Note the word should is used. I seldom return anything from main unless I plan on calling the program from some kind of script. Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSHemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN: $24.95/mo or less - 56K Dialup: $17.95/mo or less at Pop4 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Re: compile error
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 10:38:21AM +0900, Kristina wrote: When I compile qmail-1.03 on Solaris 7 the following error is produced throu ghout the compile for all *.c files. In the end, qmail compiles okay so I am wond ering if the following is something I should be worried about? qmail-local.c:448: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' Hi, Technically it's a bug. main() should always return int, never void or anything else, according standard C. I always just assumed Dan was trying to make a statement of some kind as he certainly wouldn't have done this by mistake. :) Anyway, it shouldn't actually affect anything, you can just ignore it. Chris
Re: compile error
"Chris L. Mason" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Technically it's a bug. main() should always return int... Dan always calls _exit(stat), so main() _does_ return an integer, regardless of the declaration. I always just assumed Dan was trying to make a statement of some kind as he certainly wouldn't have done this by mistake. :) In 1996, Dan said, ``In case anyone's curious: I use void main() because it shuts gcc up. If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break void main(), I will happily advise everyone to use a different compiler.'' From this we can infer that some version(s) of gcc, on some platform(s), made a lot of noise over "int main()"; perhaps when it contains no return statements. "void main()" works identically, with fewer complaints. Len.
Re: compile error
Kristina writes: When I compile qmail-1.03 on Solaris 7 the following error is produced throughout the compile for all *.c files. In the end, qmail compiles okay so I am wondering if the following is something I should be worried about? qmail-local.c:448: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' It's of no concern. At some point, some smart person decided that main should return the exit code of the program. So every program needed to have its 'main' routine changed from void to int, and have the final exit(x) changed to return(x). And this solved *what* problem? #include djb/standard-rants/gratuitious-incompatibilities.h -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: compile error
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's of no concern. At some point, some smart person decided that main
should return the exit code of the program. So every program needed to
have its 'main' routine changed from void to int,
Mm... I'm fairly certain that it's been int main() clear back to the KR
days. I don't have a 1st edition KR handy, but the second edition
declares main without a return value, which in C of course is an implicit
declaration of int.
and have the final exit(x) changed to return(x).
This is certainly not necessary. No standard requires it that I've ever
seen, and current gcc has no problems with it.
windlord:/tmp cat test.c
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
int main()
{
printf("Hello, world!\n");
exit(0);
}
windlord:/tmp gcc -W -Wall -o test test.c
windlord:/tmp ./test
Hello, world!
windlord:/tmp gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/pubsw/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.6/2.95.1/specs
gcc version 2.95.1 19990816 (release)
Older gcc's didn't know that exit doesn't return, and therefore would warn
about main without a return with warnings enabled, but that's been fixed.
I'm not even sure how long ago.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: compile error
Russ Allbery writes: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's of no concern. At some point, some smart person decided that main should return the exit code of the program. So every program needed to have its 'main' routine changed from void to int, Mm... I'm fairly certain that it's been int main() clear back to the KR days. I don't have a 1st edition KR handy, but the second edition declares main without a return value, which in C of course is an implicit declaration of int. Right, but the 1st edition doesn't mention the return value from main(). 2nd edition does. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: compile error
Dan wrote, in 1996: ``In case anyone's curious: I use void main() because it shuts gcc up. Of course, a modern version of gcc (I just tested 2.8.1) will warn about "void main()" even if you don't give it warning flags. (I asked for this to be the case, back in 1996 when Dan said that; I can't remember whether the maintainers had already made the change in the development sources or if they did so in response to my asking.) As to Russell Nelson's assertion that "int main" is a gratuitous innovation in C, I think that he's confused. "void" didn't even exist in early C, and the semantics of the return value from main() were probably in place long before void was added. I don't have any references to back up my beliefs, though.
Re: compile error
Greg Hudson writes: As to Russell Nelson's assertion that "int main" is a gratuitous innovation in C, I think that he's confused. In 1st edition KR, main() wasn't treated as a subroutine, was never declared "int main", and there was no discussion of the meaning of a return value from main. Was I confused or not? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Re: Compile error with AIX 3.2.5
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 12:58:27PM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
AIX 3.2.5 doesn't have fchdir(2).
Try replacing
if (fchdir(fdsourcedir) == -1)
with
if (chdir(".") == -1)
Looks like my (broken) suggestion a few years back (mine was a 3.2.4 system).
Please try the following patch and let me know whether it works for you.
# diff -u install.c.orig install.c
--- install.c.orig Wed Jul 14 11:02:55 1999
+++ install.c Wed Jul 14 11:08:15 1999
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+#include sys/param.h
+
#include "substdio.h"
#include "strerr.h"
#include "error.h"
@@ -10,6 +12,7 @@
#define FATAL "install: fatal: "
int fdsourcedir = -1;
+char sourcedir[MAXPATHLEN+1];
void h(home,uid,gid,mode)
char *home;
@@ -78,7 +81,7 @@
int fdin;
int fdout;
- if (fchdir(fdsourcedir) == -1)
+ if (chdir(sourcedir) == -1)
strerr_die2sys(111,FATAL,"unable to switch back to source directory: ");
fdin = open_read(file);
@@ -157,6 +160,11 @@
fdsourcedir = open_read(".");
if (fdsourcedir == -1)
strerr_die2sys(111,FATAL,"unable to open current directory: ");
+
+ getcwd(sourcedir,MAXPATHLEN);
+ if (sourcedir == (char *)0)
+strerr_die2sys(111,FATAL,"unable to open current directory: ");
+
umask(077);
hier();
Btw, the FreeBSD getcwd(3) manpage says:
These routines have traditionally been used by programs to save the name
of a working directory for the purpose of returning to it. A much faster
and less error-prone method of accomplishing this is to open the current
directory (`.') and use the fchdir(2) function to return.
AIX 4.x does have fchdir(2).
Cheers,
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Reliability means never
_/ _/ _/ having to say you're sorry."
_/ _/_/_/ -- D. J. Bernstein
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
