sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "David Michael Leo Brown Jr." <dmlb2000 AT excite.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
>I have a pure 64-bit system without multilib too. I also made a full sorcery
>rebuild, which was successful with devel grimoire. All fixes are submitted to
>their respective spells. I will be integrating them into test soon.
I have several additions to spells that need them, ie nvidia_driver,
jdk1.5-bin
do you have those done yet?
>After installing from the ISO, I booted from a Knoppix CD, moved all stuff
>from
>/lib64 to /lib and from /usr/lib64 to /usr/lib, then made symlinks. Both gcc
>and g++ now have "no multilib" option that is the default on x86_64.
>/etc/ld.so.conf only has /lib, /usr/lib and /usr/X11R6/lib.
My install process was a little different... I installed the iso then booted
to
it, however, when I started to compile stuff bash failed and I had to use
bash.static to compile the dependancies of bash then compile bash manually
to then get bash installed properly, then basesystem compiled fine, I
recompiled
everything in basesystem about 3 times before I was satisfied that it was
working. So I still have separate lib and lib64 dirs. I still added
--disable-multilib to glibc gcc g++ and gcc-cvs ;)
>I had to add "#define HaveLib64 NO" to host.def for xorg. That's enough to
>build
>it, but not enough to run :-). Xorg's ELF loader fails on startx.
I didn't have that and X compiled fine I don't know if it's because of the lib
links thing or what... and it starts fine too, I'm using xfce4.2 right now.
>There are several spells that misbehave on 64-bit system. Some has bad
>assembler
>inside, some don't recognize the archspecs, etc. Some are easily fixable,
>others... I have no idea.
There's a patch I made for config.sub to accept x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
I've applied it to 4 spells so far (same patch); glib, dhcpcd, a2ps, gtk+, so
far. Other spells are pretty obvious jdk1.5-bin and nvidia_driver need the
amd64
binary...
But that's the report from Dave's House on the x86-64 progress ;)
- David Brown
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Kowis, 04/05/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
-
Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
-
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
-
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 04/06/2005
- Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64, Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
-
Re: Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Flavien Bridault, 04/06/2005
-
Updated X.org in devel; was: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
sergey, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
Eric Sandall, 04/06/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Kowis, 04/05/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] x86-64 arch specfile not x86-64,
David Michael Leo Brown Jr., 04/05/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.