🚀 go-pugleaf

grahamc@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Graham Chapman) writes:

>In <1994May8.063849.24863@muffin.apana.org.au> cas@muffin.apana.org.au (Craig Sanders) writes:
> > I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
> > requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.

> Someone else has answered this.

Yep.  The problem was unrelated to my version of gcc.



> If you did want to upgrade, I can tell you my experiences. I tried
> first to install the vanilla gnu gcc 2.5.8, but ran in to lots of
> problems which I couldn't fathom. I can't remember what they are
> now, because I put it into the too-hard basket, and tried H.J. Lu's
> releases instead.

I upgraded 4 or 5 days ago, and it is working smoothly now.

> With HJL I had no problems apart from those caused by my failing to
> read the release notes and follow instructions to the letter. As far
> as I can recall, the only thing I had to figure out was with the libc
> install, where libm.so.x.y was moved from /lib to /usr/lib, but one of
> the makefiles still referred to /lib. Apart from that, no trouble.

Yeah, me too.

The main problems I inititally had were:

1.  I didn't read the release document thoroughly enough, and didn't 
    delete the /usr/lib/libgcc.* files.  Quickly solved about 2 minutes
    after my first make failed reporting an error with libgcc.a - a grep
    of the release notes for libgcc told me what i needed to know.

2.  There were some sym links in /usr/lib which prevented tar from
    extracting /usr/lib/libg.a and a few other important files.  In
    particular, libg.a was a sym link to libc.a - I guess things have
    changed a lot since SLS 1.03 was released.  I don't think that this
    was documented in the release notes...I had to figure it out myself.

> I installed gcc 2.5.8, then libc 4.5.21. Libc required binutils 1.9,
> tools 2.10 or above, and ld.so 1.4.3 or above. Once all that was
> done, I installed libg++ 2.5.3l.2. Of all these, libg++ included the
> binaries and recommended against trying to recompile. All the others
> had to be built.

I installed all of the above except for tools 2.10 - what's in that,
and where do you get it from?  It certainly wasn't in the archive I
ftp-ed GCC 2.5.8 and libc 4.5.21 from because i did an "mget *" to leech
everything.

I didn't have to rebuild anything - I just extracted the binaries and
the include files in the right places, and everything worked.  Then I
rebuilt the kernel with the new libraries - just so everything is up to
date - and it worked fine.

> You will need plenty of time and probably about 50Mb free disk space
> to build everything. Was it you who said something about "time to
> build a coffee plantation"....you'll have it.

I gained about 30MB by removing X from my system - I can't use it at
the moment because what used to be my mouse port is now supporting an
XT-230E vt-220 clone terminal.  Nice terminal, better than a genuine
vt-220 IMO.

I didn't need 50Mb, though, as I didn't have to recompile libc - it
worked as is in binary form.

All up, it took me about half a day - most of that time I was working on
other things while the computer chugged away in the background :-)

I didn't really need to do it as I'll be moving to Slackware 1.2.0 very
soon, but it was a worthwhile experience.  I now know a lot more about
the compiler and how it all ties in together.

Today I'll probably even have time to compile new versions of the GNU
textutils, shellutils, fileutils etc which I snarfed the other day.
Great, the versions I have installed are getting quite dated.


-- 
Craig Sanders                                     cas@muffin.apana.org.au