Spot on!
Midori is running now. No errors or missing libs when launching it from the
terminal.
Accessed a couple of web pages just to try without any issues. That's
great, Thx!
/Pedro
P.S.: Will the fix be pushed to the repo? Or are you still looking for a
permanent fix?
Den sön 20 jan. 2019 21:2
Sometimes it's a bit strange with mailing lists ;)
I've installed gcc6-libs and that fixed the problem. I'm really happy for
it and would like to thank you all for bearing with me.
I've been testing the browser for 15min and its working. Although, I have
to figure out why its eating ~70% of my cpu,
I wonder if the absence of some packages in the archives (like gimp in 2018Q4)
are related to what I’m seeing in my builds. Some packages build successfully
as individual builds, but fail to build when part of a pbulk build. Both done
inside a sandbox.
The one I’m trying to figure out right n
On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 22:26 +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> Sometimes it's a bit strange with mailing lists ;)
> I've installed gcc6-libs and that fixed the problem. I'm really happy for it
> and would like to thank you all for bearing with me.
> I've been testing the browser for 15min and its working
On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 17:34 +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> The symlink was just a test, I've removed it as I got another missing library.
>
> Here's the output of ldd /usr/pkg/bin/midori https://pastebin.com/h6wbXvBu
> and the output of ldd /usr/pkg/lib/lib*.so https://pastebin.com/UPT68xaw
> the las
Leonardo Taccari writes:
> Greg Troxel writes:
>> [...]
>> Overall, just randomly trying things isn't going to help. We need to
>> find the bug so we can fix it.
>>
>>
>> How are other people doing with these packages and netbsd-8?
>>
>> Is it just midori? Are there other packages that have bin
Greg Troxel writes:
> [...]
> Overall, just randomly trying things isn't going to help. We need to
> find the bug so we can fix it.
>
>
> How are other people doing with these packages and netbsd-8?
>
> Is it just midori? Are there other packages that have binaries that try
> to load stdc++.so.8?
I just looked at the binary packages on ftp.netbsd.org (from a shell),
and looked at the bulk build report.
Some of the packages have modification times that are before the branch,
going back to the beginning of 2018. That should have been ok, because
we try not to have ABI changes on the branch,
Good luck building midori from source. I have tried at least three
times on recent -current with current and updated pkgsrc with no luck
whatsoever. The latest is this afternoon - webkit-gtk does not build:
[ 92%] Building CXX object
Source/WebKit/CMakeFiles/WebKit.dir/__/__/DerivedSources/Web
The symlink was just a test, I've removed it as I got another missing
library.
Here's the output of ldd /usr/pkg/bin/midori https://pastebin.com/h6wbXvBu
and the output of ldd /usr/pkg/lib/lib*.so https://pastebin.com/UPT68xaw
the last one, i.e. ldd /usr/pkg/bin gives just read error: Operation no
Just found another missing package from 2018Q4, gimp is not available as a
binary package.
Den sön 20 jan. 2019 kl 17:34 skrev Pedro Pinho :
> The symlink was just a test, I've removed it as I got another missing
> library.
>
> Here's the output of ldd /usr/pkg/bin/midori https://pastebin.com/h6w
On Sun 20 Jan 2019 at 08:58:55 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> From that find the root cause, which is something that directly includes
> it, vs including a library that includes it. ldd makes this not that
> easy.
FreeBSD's ldd has an option to show just the libraries that are required
directly (and
Pedro Pinho writes:
> Back at home!
> I've just erased my disk using gpsrted-live usb and made a fresh install
> from the image here,
> http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-8/201901151910Z/images/
>
> NetBSD 8.0 STABLE arch amd64
>
> Pointed pkgin to
> http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/pkg
Hi all,
A bit short of time today, but...
I'll try to post the output from ldd later today. It was rather long, so
maybe a link to pastebin or similar is better.
I think both of you (Dave, Robert and Martin) are probably right about how
the binary was built.
I could use another browser, but I want
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 06:45:16PM -0500, David H. Gutteridge wrote:
> Though I don't think this is the most likely answer here, another
> possibility is that the problem packages have been built on a machine
> running an 8.0_BETA release from prior to Oct. 12, 2017. Because prior
> to that, libstd
Back at home!
I've just erased my disk using gpsrted-live usb and made a fresh install
from the image here,
http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-8/201901151910Z/images/
NetBSD 8.0 STABLE arch amd64
Pointed pkgin to
http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/NetBSD/amd64/8.0/All/
an
On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 17:58 -0500, David H. Gutteridge wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 23:43 +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> > Back at home!
> > I've just erased my disk using gpsrted-live usb and made a fresh
> > install from the image here,
> > http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-8/20190
On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 23:43 +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> Back at home!
> I've just erased my disk using gpsrted-live usb and made a fresh install from
> the image here,
> http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-8/201901151910Z/images/
>
> NetBSD 8.0 STABLE arch amd64
>
> Pointed pkgin t
On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 23:43 +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> Back at home!
> I've just erased my disk using gpsrted-live usb and made a fresh
> install from the image here,
> http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/netbsd-8/201901151910Z/images/
>
> NetBSD 8.0 STABLE arch amd64
>
> Pointed pkgin to
On Fri 18 Jan 2019 at 13:00:09 -0600, Robert Nestor wrote:
> , because perl-5.28.1 doesn?t build.
> It errors out with an internal gcc compiler error using the gcc that
> comes with NetBSD 8.0_STABLE.
I built perl-5.28.1 on NetBSD/amd64 8.0, as released (so nothing later
than that), and for me it
Did a clean checkout of pkgsrc-2018Q4 and tried building a few of the packages,
mainly xfce4. If fails, along with about 122 others in my build, because
perl-5.28.1 doesn’t build. but perl-5.28.1 is in the binary archives for
amd64/8.0_2018Q4 on the server. So it had to build for someone, just
I'm away from home for a few days and will try to fix my system as soon as
possible.
Still, I believe that something went wrong with the builds for the Q4
release.
This a screenshot over firefox for the Q3 list of packages,
https://imgur.com/GV71xgT
and here is the same for Q4, https://imgur.com/0V
Thank you for the heads-up.
Building everything from source on this machine is not viable. I have a
32GB SSD and the building directories would probably "eat that up".
I had no issue moving from 2018Q1 to Q2 (well except for a sync delay and a
lost symlink to 8 quickly solved by posting here) or fr
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, at 14:43:18 +0100, Marc Baudoin wrote:
> Martin Husemann écrit :
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> > > Nope, this was/is 8.0 from the start.
> >
> > And you did not have any pkgs pre-installed?
> >
> > The problem is that 8.0 had libstdc++.so
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, at 11:57:36 -0600, Robert Nestor wrote:
>[...]
>One good example is if I check out the sources for pkgsrc-2018Q4 and
>try building the meta-pkg xfce4 it fails, but the binary archive for it
>exists on the server. Assuming the sources are the same for both my
>build and the one
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 09:26:48AM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
> Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 2019 7:35 AM, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> > >
> > > While we are at it... is there a pkgin command to remove every installed
> > package?
> >
> > I don't think so. I do it like so:
> >
> > pkg_in
Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2019 7:35 AM, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> >
> > While we are at it... is there a pkgin command to remove every installed
> package?
>
> I don't think so. I do it like so:
>
> pkg_info | awk '{print $1}' > pkgs.txt
>
> remove pkgin from the list
>
> while read
I’ve noticed inconsistencies with the pre-built package archives since about
the time of NetBSD 6.2. Whenever I’ve done a clean install of NetBSD (7.x ,
8.x or -current) and then try to install some packages from almost any
corresponding package archive, I usually run into issues with incompati
Ok!
Step by step...
My repo conf line points to
http://ftp.fr.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/NetBSD/amd64/8.0/All/
it has been like this since I installed the system.
I know .../8.0/... is a symlink to the corresponding .../8.0_2018Q/...
Yesterday, I did
pkgin update
pkgin upgrade
pkgin full-upgra
On Jan 17, 2019 7:35 AM, Pedro Pinho wrote:
>
> Nope, this was/is 8.0 from the start.
> I've done a full upgrade from Q3 to Q4 that's all. I know I shouldn't mix quaternary releases.
> Please, have a look at http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/NetBSD/amd64/8.0/All/ and you will see that pac
Martin Husemann écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> > Nope, this was/is 8.0 from the start.
>
> And you did not have any pkgs pre-installed?
>
> The problem is that 8.0 had libstdc++.so.8.0, and nothing compiled for 8.0
> should ever refer to libstdc++.so.7.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> Nope, this was/is 8.0 from the start.
And you did not have any pkgs pre-installed?
The problem is that 8.0 had libstdc++.so.8.0, and nothing compiled for 8.0
should ever refer to libstdc++.so.7. So some pkg you got must have been
comi
Nope, this was/is 8.0 from the start.
I've done a full upgrade from Q3 to Q4 that's all. I know I shouldn't mix
quaternary releases.
Please, have a look at
http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/NetBSD/amd64/8.0/All/ and you
will see that packages are missing, firefox was an example.
While we a
What version of NetBSD are you running? If 7, you will almost certainly
be better off upgrading to 8.
Generally, all packages need to be from a consistent build. If you
have seme from one branch and some from another, that can be trouble.
But, your problem sounds like upgrading from netbsd-7 to
Sorry about that!
amd64
See also this other thread,
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2019/01/17/msg021986.html
Although, on the french mirror (the one I'm using) the pkg list continues
after gimp. Still, firefox is at version 52. I was running version 62 from
Q3 previously.
Thanks
Den to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:03:33AM +0100, Pedro Pinho wrote:
> Reply to myself and another problem.
> Actually, there's no firefox package with version >52!?
> Wonder if I should point my repo conf back to Q3? Does anyone know what
> went wrong with the package build?
Give us a hint: what architec
Reply to myself and another problem.
Actually, there's no firefox package with version >52!?
Wonder if I should point my repo conf back to Q3? Does anyone know what
went wrong with the package build?
Thanks
Den ons 16 jan. 2019 23:12 skrev Pedro Pinho :
> Hi all,
> I've been waiting for this sinc
37 matches
Mail list logo
