gnutls - solaris9 x86 build

Riccardo Mottola rmottola at opencsw.org
Thu Oct 1 14:58:22 CEST 2015


Hi,

having backported the texinfo patch, now I have everything fine on 
solaris 9 and 10... sparc!
So most dependencies should be right in the receipe.


On 2015-09-30 21:44:58 +0200 Riccardo Mottola <rmottola at opencsw.org> 
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm still struggling to rebuild gnutls on solaris9. I tried running 
> on x86 
> instead of sparc and get this:
> 
> /home/rmottola/opencsw/.buildsys/v2/gar//gar.conf.mk:555: *** The ISA 
> 'amd64' 
> can not be build on this kernel with the arch 'i386'.  Stop.
> gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rmottola/opencsw/gnutls/trunk'
> 
> 
> I thus think there is something wrong with the receipe?
> 
> could this be the problem?
> BUILD64_LIBS_ONLY = 1

Instead of "mgar build" directly on 9x, I issued "mgar platforms" and 
then apparently with some magic everything builds, but I do get at the 
end:

CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWlibgnutls26 += 
soname-not-found|libgcc_s.so.1|is|needed|by|opt/csw/lib/amd64/libgnutlsxx.so.27.0.0
CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWlibgnutls26 += 
soname-not-found|libgcc_s.so.1|is|needed|by|opt/csw/lib/amd64/libgnutls-extra.so.26.22.6
CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWlibgnutls26 += 
soname-not-found|libgcc_s.so.1|is|needed|by|opt/csw/lib/amd64/libgnutls.so.26.22.6
CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWlibgnutls26 += 
soname-not-found|libstdc++.so.6|is|needed|by|opt/csw/lib/amd64/libgnutlsxx.so.27.0.0

and this makes me shudder.. what is going on? amd64 build on intel 
9... not finding the gcc library?

That said, I did run
find /opt/csw/lib -name libgcc_s.so.\*


on solaris 9s:
/opt/csw/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
/opt/csw/lib/libgcc_s.so.2.95.3
/opt/csw/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1

on solaris10s:
/opt/csw/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
/opt/csw/lib/sparcv9/libgcc_s.so.1

looks fine, except for the old 2.95 library

on solaris 9x?
/opt/csw/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
/opt/csw/lib/libgcc_s.so.2.95.3


well, the 64bit is missing. But obvious, it is not a 64bit os! :)
And now?
I remembr you told me there was some kind of trick about faking 64bit 
on solaris9.. but not that it actually attempted to build.
What is wrong with this receipe?

Riccardo



More information about the maintainers mailing list