On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:32:41PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 11:07:55PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > (might be a good idea to add a link there, to the pkgsrc page for monotone)
>
> Indeed.
BuildingViaPkgsrc in the Wiki.
--
Dan.
pgpbbBW8S2Dw3.pgp
Description: PG
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 11:07:55PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Well, sure. But if you recall, this discussion was originally about
> the not-exactly-static Linux/glibc binary on the website...
Yeah, specifically about problems where the vagaries of the specific
system might not match some of th
Some of us are notorious for ignoring systems that are Linux with GNU
libc. On a significant number of systems that aren't Linux with GNU
libc, monotone and its dependencies can be built easily with pkgsrc
(www.pkgsrc.org), either static or dynamic depending on platform
capabilities and conventio
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 10:33:51PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >(And I don't agree with the general statement of that page:
> >there are lot's of systems around where dynamic linking is not
> >available, and they work fine anyway. But that's offtopic here.
>
> Drepper is notorious for ignoring
On 8/27/06, Detlef Vollmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>all kinds of features in the libc (locale (through iconv), NSS,
>IDN, ...) require dynamic linking to load the appropriate external
>code.
This is only true if some parts of the library used by monotone
use dynamic linking.
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> > So it's no problem to build a static binary with glibc 2.3 and
> > run it on a system that uses 2.2 (which is what I do).
>
> No, really, this is wrong. For instance, Ulrich Drepper (glibc head
> honcho)
On 8/27/06, Thomas Moschny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 27 August 2006 14:58 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Oh well. The autopackage people have a tool called "apgcc" that's
> supposed to provide workarounds for this:
> http://autopackage.org/apbuild-apgcc.php
Yeah, saw that too.
It seems a bi
On Sunday 27 August 2006 14:58 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Oh well. The autopackage people have a tool called "apgcc" that's
> supposed to provide workarounds for this:
> http://autopackage.org/apbuild-apgcc.php
Yeah, saw that too.
It seems a bit hackish, but I think I'll have a closer look.
- Th
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 01:56:36PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> That's why I announce those binaries to be for a glibc 2.3 system.
> Maybe it's possible to create a binary that does depend only on
> glibc 2.2, but as I don't have such a system, it would be rather
> complicated for me.
Oh well.
On Sunday 27 August 2006 11:55 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> The ldd output for me just says
> linux-gate.so.1 => (0xe000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xb7fa2000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xb7e6a000)
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x8000)
> It might still
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > Right... it isn't possible to create real static binaries with glibc
> > :-(.
> Actually, that is not really a problem. You can build static
> binaries, and I do it for my server.
> That is, they do not n
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Right... it isn't possible to create real static binaries with glibc
> :-(.
Actually, that is not really a problem. You can build static
binaries, and I do it for my server.
That is, they do not need any dynamic libraries for running.
But it is true that they need some inf
On Friday 25 August 2006 04:39, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> (You might also try
> http://venge.net/monotone/downloads/mtn-0.29-linux-x86.bz2
> anyway... I'm not sure the binary currently there _is_ compiled with
> glibc 2.3, that might be a lie as well :-).
Fwiw, it is a lie :)
I put in some eff
On 8/24/06, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
binaries compiled with glibc 2.3, even
with the -static switch, still require glibc 2.3 be available to
fully work. It's _possible_ this isn't your problem -- the weird
not-quite-static issues only show up in certain cases. But it's
somethi
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:13:12PM +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:16:09AM +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> > > So I did:
> > > $ mtn --db=/source/monotone/snapshot/oe-060823.mtn checkout
> > > --branch=org.openembedded.dev
> > > --revision=c9f
Justin Patrin wrote:
> > yesterday I built monotone 0.29 (with problems) and tried to
>
> Well that's the first flag. What problems did you rbuild have?
Well, the first problem was my own: I had to build the new version
of boost and the install ran out of disk space, which I didn't
notice before d
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:16:09AM +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> > So I did:
> > $ mtn --db=/source/monotone/snapshot/oe-060823.mtn checkout
> > --branch=org.openembedded.dev
> > --revision=c9f0e213d8e0fdc01e39c1d5ebd4f3e5de4db6b1
> >
> > and this is the command that is
On 8/24/06, Detlef Vollmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
yesterday I built monotone 0.29 (with problems) and tried to
Well that's the first flag. What problems did you rbuild have?
use it to check out a head from the OpenEmbedded database.
It checked out quite a lot of stuff, and then s
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:16:09AM +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> What I did:
> download and unzip a snapshot
> $ mtn --db=/source/monotone/snapshot/oe-060823.mtn pull
> monotone.openembedded.org org.openembedded.dev
> mtn: successful exchange with monotone.openembedded.org
> $ mtn --db=/source/m
Hello,
yesterday I built monotone 0.29 (with problems) and tried to
use it to check out a head from the OpenEmbedded database.
It checked out quite a lot of stuff, and then seemingly
went into an endless loop: 100% CPU time and now more than
11 hours of CPU time, with no apparent action in the tar
20 matches
Mail list logo
