Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.) - Solaris

This is a discussion on Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.) - Solaris ; On Mar 31, 2:15 am, mike3 wrote: > I've just noticed something. I just tried clearing my LD_LIBRARY_PATH > and > LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 env. variables, and using CFLAGS=-m32 (and ONLY > that in my CFLAGS), and now I'm not getting the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

  1. BUG in GCC?! (was Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine

    On Mar 31, 2:15 am, mike3 wrote:
    > I've just noticed something. I just tried clearing my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
    > and
    > LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 env. variables, and using CFLAGS=-m32 (and ONLY
    > that in my CFLAGS), and now I'm not getting the ELFCLASS32 error, but
    > I'm
    > getting this instead:
    > ---
    > checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
    > checking whether stripping libraries is possible... no
    > checking dynamic linker characteristics... solaris2.10 ld.so
    > checking command to parse /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/
    > nm output... failed
    > checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes
    > checking whether to build shared libraries... yes
    > checking whether to build static libraries... yes
    > creating libtool
    > updating cache ./config.cache
    > configure: loading cache ./config.cache
    > checking for i386-pc-solaris2.10-gfortran... /home/sgc-programming/gcc-
    > build-4.2.3/./gcc/gfortran -B/home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./
    > gcc/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/bin/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-
    > solaris2.10/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/include -
    > isystem /opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/sys-include
    > checking whether we are using the GNU Fortran compiler... no
    > checking whether /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/gfortran -
    > B/home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-
    > solaris2.10/bin/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu/
    > i386-pc-solaris2.10/include -isystem /opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/sys-
    > include accepts -g... no
    > checking whether the GNU Fortran compiler is working... no
    > configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working; the most common reason
    > for that is that you might have linked it to shared GMP and/or MPFR
    > libraries, and not set LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. If you suspect any
    > other reason, please report a bug inhttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla,
    > attaching /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/i386-pc-solaris2.10/
    > libgfortran/config.log
    > make[1]: *** [configure-target-libgfortran] Error 1
    > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3'
    > make: *** [all] Error 2
    > ----
    >
    > So apparently I _DO_ have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Looking in
    > /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/i386-pc-solaris2.10/libgfortran/
    > config.log:
    >
    > ---
    > configure:4690: result: no
    > configure:4728: checking whether the GNU Fortran compiler is working
    > configure:4742: /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/gfortran -
    > B/home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-
    > solaris2.10/bin/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu/
    > i386-pc-solaris2.10/include -isystem /opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/sys-
    > include -c conftest.f >&5
    > ld.so.1: f951: fatal: libmpfr.so.1: open failed: No such file or
    > directory
    > ---
    >
    > I'm going to try it now with LD_LIBRARY_PATH set but
    > LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64
    > NOT set. Maybe that might get it to work.


    Anyway, I've done that, setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib,
    where GMP & MPFR reside, and now I'm getting yet another error:

    ---
    /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/sgc-
    programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/./gcc/ -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/bin/
    -B/opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu/i386-pc-
    solaris2.10/include -isystem /opt/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.10/sys-include -
    DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../../gcc-4.2.3/libgomp -I. -I../../../../
    gcc-4.2.3/libgomp/config/posix -I../../../../gcc-4.2.3/libgomp -Wall -
    pthread -Werror -O2 -m32 -m64 -MT env.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/env.Tpo -
    c ../../../../gcc-4.2.3/libgomp/env.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/env.o
    In file included from ../../../../gcc-4.2.3/libgomp/env.c:32:
    ../libgomp_f.h: In function 'omp_check_defines':
    ../libgomp_f.h:65: error: size of array 'test' is negative
    ---

    Could I, at long last, have found a BUG in GCC, the Best
    compiler in the world? (Not even the best is perfect, you
    know, so I would not be surprised.)

    The relevant code snippet appears to be:
    (from libgomp_f.h.in):

    ---
    static inline void
    omp_check_defines (void)
    {
    char test[(@OMP_LOCK_SIZE@ != sizeof (omp_lock_t)
    || @OMP_LOCK_ALIGN@ != __alignof (omp_lock_t)
    || @OMP_NEST_LOCK_SIZE@ != sizeof (omp_nest_lock_t)
    || @OMP_NEST_LOCK_ALIGN@ != __alignof (omp_nest_lock_t)
    || @OMP_LOCK_KIND@ != sizeof (*(omp_lock_arg_t) 0)
    || @OMP_NEST_LOCK_KIND@ != sizeof (*(omp_nest_lock_arg_t) 0))
    ? -1 : 1] __attribute__ ((__unused__));
    }
    ---

  2. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:15:14 -0700, mike3 wrote:

    > checking whether the GNU Fortran compiler is working... no
    > configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working; the most common reason
    > for that is that you might have linked it to shared GMP and/or MPFR
    > libraries, and not set LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. If you suspect any
    > other reason, please report a bug in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla,
    > attaching /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/i386-pc-solaris2.10/
    > libgfortran/config.log


    > So apparently I _DO_ have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Looking in
    > /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/i386-pc-solaris2.10/libgfortran/
    > config.log:


    Bzzzzzt! I did tell you that you must use the -L/path_to/lib and
    -R/path_to/lib in your LDFLAGS. Example:

    export LDFLAGS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib'

    iff the gmp and mpfr libs are in /usr/local/lib. You do this *before*
    running the configure script.

    Do NOT set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, *ever*!!


  3. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: MoreFreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mar 31, 2:33 am, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:15:14 -0700, mike3 wrote:
    > > checking whether the GNU Fortran compiler is working... no
    > > configure: error: GNU Fortran is not working; the most common reason
    > > for that is that you might have linked it to shared GMP and/or MPFR
    > > libraries, and not set LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. If you suspect any
    > > other reason, please report a bug inhttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla,
    > > attaching /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/i386-pc-solaris2.10/
    > > libgfortran/config.log
    > > So apparently I _DO_ have to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Looking in
    > > /home/sgc-programming/gcc-build-4.2.3/i386-pc-solaris2.10/libgfortran/
    > > config.log:

    >
    > Bzzzzzt! I did tell you that you must use the -L/path_to/lib and
    > -R/path_to/lib in your LDFLAGS. Example:
    >
    > export LDFLAGS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib'
    >
    > iff the gmp and mpfr libs are in /usr/local/lib. You do this *before*
    > running the configure script.
    >
    > Do NOT set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, *ever*!!


    Oh, OK. But what about the what I thought was a BUG I discovered in
    GCC, the one with the error "error: size of array 'test' is negative"?

    Looking at the code snippet, I'd say there seems to be a mismatch
    between the size of one of the types tested and the expected value.
    Could this be another 32/64 incompatibility issue? (I know some types
    change length when going from 32 to 64, for example, "long" becomes
    64 bits long on a 64-bit machine while it's 32 bits long on a 32-bit
    machine, and pointers undergo a similar inflation.) I noticed the
    darned
    thing was still trying to include "-m64" in it's compile even though
    CFLAGS was set to -m32 and nothing else!

  4. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:50:29 -0700, mike3 wrote:
    > On Mar 31, 2:33 am, Dave Uhring wrote:


    >> export LDFLAGS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib'
    >>
    >> iff the gmp and mpfr libs are in /usr/local/lib. You do this *before*
    >> running the configure script.
    >>
    >> Do NOT set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, *ever*!!

    >
    > Oh, OK. But what about the what I thought was a BUG I discovered in
    > GCC, the one with the error "error: size of array 'test' is negative"?


    AFAIC, the whole thing is a bug. When I set -m32 in my CFLAGS I should
    never see a 64 bit object being built, period, irrespective of the fact
    that the kernel is 64 bit and there are 64 bit libraries in the system.

    I even when back through their Makefiles replacing every instance of
    -m64 with -m32 and their build process still went back to using -m64.

    Visit their bugzilla site and see if they already have this problem
    reported. If not then file a report with them. They may fix it or
    more likely tell you that you are an idiot.

    > I noticed the darned thing was still trying to include "-m64" in it's
    > compile even though CFLAGS was set to -m32 and nothing else!


    That's a BUG. gcc-3.4.3 on Solaris 10 is good enough to build sources
    which are written too sloppily to build with Sun's compiler. You are
    wasting your time with this.


  5. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: MoreFreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mar 31, 1:52*pm, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:50:29 -0700, mike3 wrote:
    > > On Mar 31, 2:33 am, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > >> export LDFLAGS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib'

    >
    > >> iff the gmp and mpfr libs are in /usr/local/lib. *You do this *before*
    > >> running the configure script.

    >
    > >> Do NOT set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, *ever*!!

    >
    > > Oh, OK. But what about the what I thought was a BUG I discovered in
    > > GCC, the one with the error "error: size of array 'test' is negative"?

    >
    > AFAIC, the whole thing is a bug. *When I set -m32 in my CFLAGS I should
    > never see a 64 bit object being built, period, irrespective of the fact
    > that the kernel is 64 bit and there are 64 bit libraries in the system.
    >
    > I even when back through their Makefiles replacing every instance of
    > -m64 with -m32 and their build process still went back to using -m64.
    >
    > Visit their bugzilla site and see if they already have this problem
    > reported. *If not then file a report with them. *They may fix it or
    > more likely tell you that you are an idiot.
    >


    Why would they say I was an idiot? Unless it's not a bug, so then why
    are you saying it is?

    > > I noticed the darned thing was still trying to include "-m64" in it's
    > > compile even though CFLAGS was set to -m32 and nothing else!

    >
    > That's a BUG. *gcc-3.4.3 on Solaris 10 is good enough to build sources
    > which are written too sloppily to build with Sun's compiler. *You are
    > wasting your time with this.


    Ah, so I was right: I just found a bug in GCC!!! Wow!!!

    So I really should get the Sun compilers then...

  6. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine

    mike3 wrote:
    >
    > So I really should get the Sun compilers then...


    You'd have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you'd done that last week!

    --
    Ian Collins.

  7. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:20:26 -0700, mike3 wrote:
    > On Mar 31, 1:52*pm, Dave Uhring wrote:


    >> Visit their bugzilla site and see if they already have this problem
    >> reported. *If not then file a report with them. *They may fix it or
    >> more likely tell you that you are an idiot.
    >>

    >
    > Why would they say I was an idiot? Unless it's not a bug, so then why
    > are you saying it is?


    You are trying to build a software package on a system which I am sure the
    software was not properly designed to be built on. AFAIK Solaris is the
    only OS available on x86 which can execute 32 bit binaries on a 64 bit
    kernel. Linux and the BSD's are either 32 bit or 64 bit; no miscegenation
    allowed there.

    >> That's a BUG. *gcc-3.4.3 on Solaris 10 is good enough to build sources
    >> which are written too sloppily to build with Sun's compiler. *You are
    >> wasting your time with this.

    >
    > Ah, so I was right: I just found a bug in GCC!!! Wow!!!
    >
    > So I really should get the Sun compilers then...


    It's about time.


  8. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On 2008-04-01 00:52:01 +0100, Dave Uhring said:

    > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:20:26 -0700, mike3 wrote:
    >> On Mar 31, 1:52*pm, Dave Uhring wrote:

    >
    >>> Visit their bugzilla site and see if they already have this problem
    >>> reported. *If not then file a report with them. *They may fix it or
    >>> more likely tell you that you are an idiot.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why would they say I was an idiot? Unless it's not a bug, so then why
    >> are you saying it is?

    >
    > You are trying to build a software package on a system which I am sure the
    > software was not properly designed to be built on. AFAIK Solaris is the
    > only OS available on x86 which can execute 32 bit binaries on a 64 bit
    > kernel. Linux and the BSD's are either 32 bit or 64 bit; no miscegenation
    > allowed there.


    I don't have a 64-bit BSD box to hand, but I just built and ran a
    32-bit executable on a Linux box running a 64-bit kernel.

    Windows XP 64 can also run 32-bit programs. Dunno if that's considered
    a true 64-bit kernel though.

    Back to Unix - OS X can run 32-bit apps on 64-bit machines.

    So it seems pretty a common sort of functionality.

    Cheers,

    Chris


  9. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:25:28 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
    > On 2008-04-01 00:52:01 +0100, Dave Uhring said:
    >
    >> You are trying to build a software package on a system which I am sure the
    >> software was not properly designed to be built on. AFAIK Solaris is the
    >> only OS available on x86 which can execute 32 bit binaries on a 64 bit
    >> kernel. Linux and the BSD's are either 32 bit or 64 bit; no miscegenation
    >> allowed there.

    >
    > I don't have a 64-bit BSD box to hand, but I just built and ran a
    > 32-bit executable on a Linux box running a 64-bit kernel.


    I tried that on Debian Etch for am64 - no go, but then it was 32 bit
    Firefox which I tried running without having given due consideration of
    the platform on which I had installed it.

    > Windows XP 64 can also run 32-bit programs. Dunno if that's considered
    > a true 64-bit kernel though.


    No experience there and ain't gonna be.

    > Back to Unix - OS X can run 32-bit apps on 64-bit machines.


    I've never had a thing to do with Apple or any of its products.

    > So it seems pretty a common sort of functionality.


    Agreed, if OS-X can do it then my statement was too general.


  10. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:52:20 -0500, Dave Uhring wrote:
    >
    > That's a BUG. gcc-3.4.3 on Solaris 10 is good enough to build sources
    > which are written too sloppily to build with Sun's compiler. You are
    > wasting your time with this.


    AFAIK, you can't do a full build of GCC with an external compiler in any
    case. GCC does a bootstrap build - first it builds a minimal compiler. Then
    it uses that to continue the build. My guess is that it is easier for
    the GCC developers to build a compiler rather than to write portable
    code.

    A bientot
    Paul
    --
    Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr

  11. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:38:30 -0500, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:25:28 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
    >
    > Agreed, if OS-X can do it then my statement was too general.


    OS X does things the other way round. It has a 32bit kernel, but it can
    run 64bit apps.

    A bientot
    Paul
    --
    Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr

  12. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On 2008-04-01 20:55:59 +0100, Paul Floyd said:

    > On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:38:30 -0500, Dave Uhring wrote:
    >> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:25:28 +0100, Chris Ridd wrote:
    >>
    >> Agreed, if OS-X can do it then my statement was too general.

    >
    > OS X does things the other way round. It has a 32bit kernel, but it can
    > run 64bit apps.


    Good old Apple, doing things differently :-)

    Cheers,

    Chris


  13. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:52:50 +0000, Paul Floyd wrote:

    > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:52:20 -0500, Dave Uhring wrote:
    >>
    >> That's a BUG. gcc-3.4.3 on Solaris 10 is good enough to build sources
    >> which are written too sloppily to build with Sun's compiler. You are
    >> wasting your time with this.

    >
    > AFAIK, you can't do a full build of GCC with an external compiler in any
    > case. GCC does a bootstrap build - first it builds a minimal compiler. Then
    > it uses that to continue the build. My guess is that it is easier for
    > the GCC developers to build a compiler rather than to write portable
    > code.


    The bootstrap build is no problem. In fact I generally do a second
    bootstrap build using the previously generated compiler. I have had the
    test suite run more successfully this way.

    But the GCC developers seem to build and test on Linux and that is an
    environment where portable code is too "difficult" for some people to
    develop.



  14. Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: MoreFreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.)

    On Mar 31, 5:52*pm, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:20:26 -0700, mike3 wrote:
    > > On Mar 31, 1:52*pm, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > >> Visit their bugzilla site and see if they already have this problem
    > >> reported. *If not then file a report with them. *They may fix it or
    > >> more likely tell you that you are an idiot.

    >
    > > Why would they say I was an idiot? Unless it's not a bug, so then why
    > > are you saying it is?

    >
    > You are trying to build a software package on a system which I am sure the
    > software was not properly designed to be built on. *AFAIK Solaris is the
    > only OS available on x86 which can execute 32 bit binaries on a 64 bit
    > kernel. *Linux and the BSD's are either 32 bit or 64 bit; no miscegenation
    > allowed there.
    >


    Ah, since because it's the GNU compiler it's for the GNU system. That
    would make sense.

    > >> That's a BUG. *gcc-3.4.3 on Solaris 10 is good enough to build sources
    > >> which are written too sloppily to build with Sun's compiler. *You are
    > >> wasting your time with this.

    >
    > > Ah, so I was right: I just found a bug in GCC!!! Wow!!!

    >
    > > So I really should get the Sun compilers then...

    >
    > It's about time.


    Well, I guess I'll do it then.

  15. Sun Studio doesn't install either (was Re: Solaris vs Linux vs

    Well, I tried installing Sun Studio as was suggested but that didn't
    work either.
    The installer failed with this:

    ---
    # ./batch_installer --accept-sla
    Usage: dirname [ path ]
    Java Accessibility Bridge for GNOME loaded.


    Validating patches...

    Loading patches installed on the system...

    Done!

    Loading patches requested to install.

    Done!

    The following requested patches have packages not installed on the
    system
    Package SPROcpl from directory SPROcpl in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROcpl will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROcplx from directory SPROcplx in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROcplx will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROmrcpl from directory SPROmrcpl in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROmrcpl will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROscl from directory SPROscl in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROscl will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROsclx from directory SPROsclx in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROsclx will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROstl4h from directory SPROstl4h in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4h will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROstl4a from directory SPROstl4a in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4a will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROstl4o from directory SPROstl4o in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4o will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROstl4x from directory SPROstl4x in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4x will not be
    applied to the system.
    Package SPROstl4y from directory SPROstl4y in patch 124864-01 is not
    installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4y will not be
    applied to the system.

    Checking patches that you specified for installation.

    Done!


    The following requested patches will not be installed because
    the packages they patch are not installed on this system.

    0 Packages from patch 124864-01 are not installed on the
    system.




    No patches to install.

    Installation failed: cleanup successful.
    ---

    Trying to run "./prepare_system" before this gave:

    ---
    # ./prepare_system -C
    Usage: dirname [ path ]
    The following steps are required: netbeans
    # ./prepare_system -s netbeans
    Usage: dirname [ path ]
    invalid media for preparation. You may only check your system with
    this script.
    ---

    ?!

    What does that mean? Invalid media? I thought this was a full download!

  16. Re: Sun Studio doesn't install either (was Re: Solaris vs Linux vs

    On Apr 2, 2:09 am, mike3 wrote:
    > Well, I tried installing Sun Studio as was suggested but that didn't
    > work either.
    > The installer failed with this:
    >
    > ---
    > # ./batch_installer --accept-sla
    > Usage: dirname [ path ]
    > Java Accessibility Bridge for GNOME loaded.
    >
    > Validating patches...
    >
    > Loading patches installed on the system...
    >
    > Done!
    >
    > Loading patches requested to install.
    >
    > Done!
    >
    > The following requested patches have packages not installed on the
    > system
    > Package SPROcpl from directory SPROcpl in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROcpl will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROcplx from directory SPROcplx in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROcplx will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROmrcpl from directory SPROmrcpl in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROmrcpl will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROscl from directory SPROscl in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROscl will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROsclx from directory SPROsclx in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROsclx will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROstl4h from directory SPROstl4h in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4h will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROstl4a from directory SPROstl4a in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4a will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROstl4o from directory SPROstl4o in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4o will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROstl4x from directory SPROstl4x in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4x will not be
    > applied to the system.
    > Package SPROstl4y from directory SPROstl4y in patch 124864-01 is not
    > installed on the system. Changes for package SPROstl4y will not be
    > applied to the system.
    >
    > Checking patches that you specified for installation.
    >
    > Done!
    >
    > The following requested patches will not be installed because
    > the packages they patch are not installed on this system.
    >
    > 0 Packages from patch 124864-01 are not installed on the
    > system.
    >
    > No patches to install.
    >
    > Installation failed: cleanup successful.
    > ---
    >
    > Trying to run "./prepare_system" before this gave:
    >
    > ---
    > # ./prepare_system -C
    > Usage: dirname [ path ]
    > The following steps are required: netbeans
    > # ./prepare_system -s netbeans
    > Usage: dirname [ path ]
    > invalid media for preparation. You may only check your system with
    > this script.
    > ---
    >
    > ?!
    >
    > What does that mean? Invalid media? I thought this was a full download!


    Never mind. Turns out what happened was I had spaces in the
    directory name I was trying to install the software from. Got rid of
    that
    and it works.

  17. Re: Sun Studio doesn't install either (was Re: Solaris vs Linux vs FreeBSD on SPARC Machine (was: Re: Was: More FreeBSD Problems! Graphics are not working.))

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:36:53 -0700, mike3 wrote:

    > Never mind. Turns out what happened was I had spaces in the
    > directory name I was trying to install the software from. Got rid of
    > that
    > and it works.


    Add /opt/SUNWspro/bin and /usr/ccs/bin to your PATH
    and /opt/SUNWspro/man to your MANPATH.

    Patching is made considerably easier by using Martin Paul's pca,

    http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2