Re: [courier-users] configure errors while trying to configure courier-authlib-0.60.2 -- SOLVED

[<ra...@fr...>]

Quoting "ra...@fr..." <ra...@fr...>:

> Quoting Sam Varshavchik <mr...@co...>:
>
>> ra...@fr... writes:
>>
>>> Quoting Sam Varshavchik <mr...@co...>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Look in the config.log file in the subdirectory where this configure
>>>> script reported this error. The config.log should contain a log of the
>>>> compiler errors that will point to the real problem.
>>>
>>> This is what I'm getting from config.log
>>>
>>> First:
>>>
>>> configure:24898: checking sys/time.h usability
>>> configure:24915: gcc -c ?I?h?m?/?p?p?a?l?i?c?u?e? -g -O2 -Wall -I..
>>>   -I./..  conftest.c >&5
>>> gcc: ?I?h?m?/?p?p?a?l?i?c?u?e?: No such file or directory
>>> configure:24921: $? =3D 1
>>> configure: failed program was:
>>> | /* confdefs.h.  */
>>>
>>> I don't understand the unprintable characters in the config.log,
>>
>> If you did not specify any non-default parameters to the configure
>> script, or did not set any of the configuration variables, this looks
>> like a hardware problem, most likely bad RAM. Run memtest86 and see
>> what happens.
>>
>> Either that, or your tarball is corrupted. Check the tarball's GPG
>> signature, to verify that you do not have a damaged tarball.
>
> memtest86 reports that the memory is clean: 0 errors reported.
>
> so I set about the verify the tarball and found out something interesting:
>
> courier-authlib-0.60.1
> courier-authlib-0.60.0
>
> all do the same thing at the same place over the same header files.
>
> I compiled from source all of DJBs tools on this box and this is the
> first real problem I've seen.
>
> The fact that other versions of courier-authlib have similar failures
> makes me suspect that 0.60.2 is possibly not the problem, the fact
> that the exact same errors over the exact same files makes me wonder
> if maybe the devel packages were corrupt somehow.
>
> But that doesnt make sense either as I'm sure that if the devel
> packages for Centos 5.1 were hosed somehow, that thousands of server
> operators would be complaining all over the place.
>
> This is starting to smell strange.
>
> Any other hints or things to check?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> courier-users mailing list
> cou...@li...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
>


When I tested the above I rebooted the server late last night after =20
having tested everything else I discussed.

Somehow today, one reboot later, everything is fine, no ./configure =20
errors Not sure what difference the reboot made, but it made it.

Thanks Sam for the pointers