Re: trouble building (linking) code on Xubuntu
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:58:06AM -0400, John Gabriele wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure if this is the right place to ask about this. Please let me
> know if I should be asking this elsewhere.
>
> I'm trying to build the most recent version of
> [ne](http://ne.dsi.unimi.it/) (the "nice editor") on Xubuntu 12.04.
> The source files seem to compile fine, but then when I get to the link
> stage, I get this:
>
> ~~~
> {...snip various files getting successfully compiled, ... then}
>
> cc -lmactions.o ansi.o autocomp.o buffer.o clips.o cm.o command.o
> display.o edit.o errors.o exec.o ext.o hash.o help.o input.o
> inputclass.o keys.o menu.o names.o navigation.o ne.o prefs.o regex.o
> request.o search.o signals.o streams.o support.o syn_hash.o
> syn_regex.o syn_utf8.o syn_utils.o syntax.o term.o undo.o utf8.o -
> lcurses -o ne
You have -lm before your object files, so it may be discarded
independently of them, which would explain the undefined reference.
Try to put it at the same place as -lcurses.
> menu.o: In function `draw_status_bar':
> menu.c:(.text+0x1416): undefined reference to `floor'
> menu.c:(.text+0x15c1): undefined reference to `floor'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[1]: *** [ne] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/john/opt/src/ne-2.4/src'
> make: *** [install] Error 2
> ~~~
>
> (If it matters, this is on a 64-bit machine.)
>
> As an aside, if I go ahead and install ne via apt-get (which gets me
> the older ne version 2.3.1), I see this:
>
> ~~~
> $ ldd `which ne`
> linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7fff76fff000)
> libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5
> (0x7f29b7416000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6 (0x7f29b711c000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f29b6d5e000)
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f29b765)
> ~~~
>
> Any suggestions as to what might be the problem?
>
> Thanks,
> ---John
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>
--
Lionel Le Folgoc
E61E 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Reintroducing packages throught -proposed
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:07:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello, > > Benjamin Drung [2010-08-14 20:51 +0200]: > > I am asking this question, because libstdc++5 was removed from karmic > > and it was recently reintroduces in maverick. > > I wasn't really happy about libstdc++ returning to maverick, but it > kind of "just happened" through autosyncs. > AFAIK (and according to LP), it wasn't autosynced but instead reintroduced manually by a developer using syncpackage (that's unrelated, but it would be really useful to know once and for all whether we should use this script or request syncs the old way…). Regards, Lionel -- Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit E61E 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: glibc version in Ubuntu 10.04!
Hi, On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:41:27PM +0200, Naresh Mehta wrote: > Hi All, > > I am trying to compile Ofono in Ubuntu 10.04. I have a problem with the > glibc version number. Ofono needs a version >2.16 whereas 10.04 gives 2.10. > Upstream of glibc is at 2.9. Why is ubuntu 10.04 stuck at 2.10? Is there a > reason for that and/or are there any plans to upgrade the library later on? > It requires glib >= 2.16, not glibc. Cheers, -- Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit E61E 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Introduction to Ubuntu Distributed Development
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:40:19PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > Right now, that vote would be: > > ( ) continue using the existing apt-get source infrastructure, and > contribute by sending debdiffs around; merge from Debian by hand, > etc. > What do you mean "by hand"? I've already been merging xubuntu-dev's bzr branches with debian pkg-xfce's svn ones before that (and this isn't limited to bzr, hg & git can do that too)… And $random_vcs was doing the merge for me. The "new bzr infrastructure" didn't invent the concept of VCS or merge. Actually, for lucid, so far, the new infrastructure has been particularly inefficient for me, as the lp:ubuntu and lp:debian branches (for the universe packages I have been working on) were either outdated or missing… This will probably improve in time, but that's frustrating, especially since you're saying "omg, it rocks, just use it!". I'm fairly confident that there won't be any vote, because that's not how Ubuntu works, and that's not the problem. The problem is how you're describing the vote: ( ) continue using the old system, it's inefficient, bad, believe me, select the other choice, etc. ( ) switch to the new system, believe me, it's better, it's new, it rocks, it's new, did I say that it's new? so use it. Hopefully, you're doing that on purpose (or you have a problem with the word 'objectivity'), but it does no good to the new architecture… The original mail from James was much more interesting. :) Cheers, Lionel -- Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit E61E 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
