bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS 1.11p1 build under Solaris 7 (RETSIGTYPE)


From: Jeff Blaine
Subject: Re: CVS 1.11p1 build under Solaris 7 (RETSIGTYPE)
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:28:52 -0400

Wow, I am getting the most bizarre behavior here.  It would seem that
'make distclean' is in fact not restoring the source tree "well enough".

I can do the following:

1.  Start from cvs-1.11p1.tar.gz, gunzip, untar
2.  cd cvs-1.11p1
3.  ./configure --prefix=/bar --without-gssapi --without-krb4
--enable-server > configure.1.log 2>&1
4.  make > make.1.log 2>&1
5.  It builds fine.
6.  make distclean (shows no errors)
7.  Perform steps 3 and 4 again, but with new log file names.  Won't
    build.

The successful log file for 'make' starts as follows:

   make  all-recursive
   make[1]: Entering directory `/silmaril.mitre.org/src/cvs-1.11.1p1'
   Making all in lib
   ...

The failed log file for 'make' starts as follows:

    cd . && /bin/sh /silmaril.mitre.org/src/cvs-1.11.1p1/missing --run
autoheader
    FATAL ERROR: Autoconf version 2.13 or higher is required for this script
    cd . \
      && CONFIG_FILES= CONFIG_HEADERS=config.h \
         /bin/sh ./config.status
    creating config.h
    make  all-recursive
    ...

--On Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:02 PM -0400 Larry Jones
<address@hidden> wrote:

> Jeff Blaine writes:
>> 
>> As I know it, Sun's C compiler is Forte 6.1 SUNWspro, which used to be
>> named Sun Workshop.
>> 
>> Forte 6.1's 'cc' is what I used (in addition to GNU CC) to try to compile
>> it...with the same exact result.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not up on Sun terminology.  When you mentioned "Forte", I
> thought you were referring to some third-party compiler.
> 
>> What "Sun C compiler" are you referring to that appears to work?
> 
> "cc -V" says it's "WorkShop Compilers 4.2 30 Oct 1996 C 4.2", which I'm
> guessing is rather old.  The newest compiler I seem to have access to
> identifies itself as "Sun WorkShop 6 update 1 C 5.2 2000/09/11" -- is
> that the same compiler as what you have?  On Solaris 8 (I don't have it
> on a Solaris 7 machine), that also works fine.
> 
> -Larry Jones
> 
> I can do that!  It's a free country!  I've got my rights! -- Calvin





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]