From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12123 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2009 01:47:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 12114 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2009 01:47:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx4.access-company.com (HELO mx4.access-company.com) (12.7.175.32) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:47:41 +0000 Received: from ussunex02.svl.access-company.com ([192.168.101.10]) by mx4 (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB21laFO006799; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:47:36 -0800 Received: from ussunowa1.svl.access-company.com ([10.0.20.19]) by ussunex02.svl.access-company.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:47:36 -0800 Received: from svfroussellnx.svl.access-company.com ([192.168.108.242]) by ussunowa1.svl.access-company.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:47:35 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] CVS retrieval of GLIBC cannot work for 2.10.1 Message-Id: User-Agent: Mercurial-patchbomb/1.3.1 Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:47:00 -0000 From: Frederic Roussel To: "Yann E. MORIN" Cc: crossgcc@sourceware.org X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2009-12-02_02:2009-11-30,2009-12-02,2009-12-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 classifier= adjust=0 reason=safe engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-0912010224 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact crossgcc-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 Hi All, I've noticed that CVS retrieval for glibc cannot work, so I made a patch to disable it in glibc.in. There are several reasons for the CVS retrieval to fail: - glibc-2_10_1-branch doesn't exist in the CVS tree. only glibc-2_10_1 is there. but the CT_GetCVS assumes that -branch will always be the suffix to use. - there is no ports module for 2.10.1 yet I probably don't understand all the subtelty of glibc CVS tree tags naming, but I have noticed that some trees are clearly identical acrtoss versions. For instance "glibc-2_10-branch" and "glibc-2_10_1" are identical. glibc-2_10-branch/version.h carries the version 2.10.1 That being said, the upstream project advertizes the use of "git" rather than "cvs". Is there any work going on to have "git" trees retrieved ? Oh, before I forget, the recurring build failure for glibc (2.10.1) that I was seeing before Thanksgiving went totally away for some mysterious reasons. That had been discussed in this list around July 23. As suggested I tried 'ct-ng distclean' but no matter of cleanup solved my problem as it did for the original reporter. The Cross-Linux From Scratch foks were seeing the same problem. Based on their findings I introduced: CT_LIBC_GLIBC_EXTRA_CFLAGS="-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE Yeah, I don't like it either. But that made the problm go away. After Thanksgiving, I tried again without the flag. Lo and behold it worked. I don't know if any the checkins from Yann might have fixed that. I just wanted to document it in the list, in case it happens again. Thanks --Frederic -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq