Re: building zlib on the Ultra

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Ben Collins wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 11:40:16AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Yet another data point in the source dependency saga.
> > 
> > zlib1g requires altgcc in order to build.
> 
> No it doesn't. Read the rules file, and remove sparc from the list of
> altdev archs. Read the BTS and note the bug I have files against it to
> remove sparc's libc5 support.

Thanks, that was all it needed.

> 
> > altgcc can not be built on the Ultra, and provides the following:
> > 
> >    This appears to be a sparc64-unknown-linux system.
> >    Configuration sparc64-unknown-linux not supported
> >    make: *** [build] Error 1
> 
> This is a problem with conflicting uname -m. UltraSPARC port is currently
> considered a sparc-linux platform (sparc32 running under sparc64). I have
> submitted a bug against shellutils so that when FAKE_SPARC=yes is set in
> the env, uname -m will report sparc and not sparc64.
> 
Well, hopefully it will not be a problem, unless there is something else
that requires its use...

> > While I understand the error, I don't understand why a critical library
> > for xfree86 (and therefore indirectly for packages like tetex-bin, which
> > need xlib6g in order to build), still requires an ancient compiler. Is
> > there some pressing reason that it can't be built with one or the other of
> > the up-to-date compilers the rest of the distribution is using?
> 
> It only uses it to build the libc5 alt packages. The actual zlib1g does
> not require altgcc.
> 
Understood.

Thanks,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-