Menu
▾
▴
rdesktop-users
|
From: David W S. <dw...@we...> - 2003-06-25 11:51:18
|
Hi, If there's anyone who has successfully installed rdesktop 1.2.0 on Solaris 8 Sparc I'd appreciate some pointers/tips. For when I run 'configure' I get as far as this message each time (gcc 3.0.3 is installed): ERROR: could not find a C compiler (tried: gcc cc) Thanks. David Smith |
|
From: Ralf H. <Ral...@ch...> - 2003-06-25 12:30:31
|
* David W Smith <dw...@we...>: > Hi, > > If there's anyone who has successfully installed rdesktop 1.2.0 on > Solaris 8 Sparc I'd appreciate some pointers/tips. For when I run > 'configure' I get as far as this message each time (gcc 3.0.3 is > installed): > > ERROR: could not find a C compiler (tried: gcc cc) Look in config.log What does "which gcc" say? -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) Ral...@ch... Charite Campus Mitte Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V a - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 AIM: ralfpostfix |
|
From: David W S. <dw...@we...> - 2003-06-25 15:01:57
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > * David W Smith <dw...@we...>: > > Hi, > > > > If there's anyone who has successfully installed rdesktop 1.2.0 on > > Solaris 8 Sparc I'd appreciate some pointers/tips. For when I run > > 'configure' I get as far as this message each time (gcc 3.0.3 is > > installed): > > > > ERROR: could not find a C compiler (tried: gcc cc) > > Look in config.log > > What does "which gcc" say? --- No config.log is created I'm afraid. All I get for my troubles is the above error message. David |
|
From: Ralf H. <Ral...@ch...> - 2003-06-25 15:37:11
|
* David W Smith <dw...@we...>: > > > ERROR: could not find a C compiler (tried: gcc cc) > > > > Look in config.log > > > > What does "which gcc" say? > > --- No config.log is created I'm afraid. All I get for my troubles is the > above error message. What does "which gcc" say? -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) Ral...@ch... Charite Campus Mitte Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V a - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 AIM: ralfpostfix |
|
From: David W S. <dw...@we...> - 2003-06-25 16:08:10
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > * David W Smith <dw...@we...>: > > > > > ERROR: could not find a C compiler (tried: gcc cc) > > > > > > Look in config.log > > > > > > What does "which gcc" say? > > > > --- No config.log is created I'm afraid. All I get for my troubles is the > > above error message. > > What does "which gcc" say? --- My gcc is 3.0.3 and is '/usr/local/bin/'. David |
|
From: Mrs. B. <mrs...@ni...> - 2003-06-26 00:43:00
|
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 12:07, David W Smith wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > > > * David W Smith <dw...@we...>: > > > > > > > ERROR: could not find a C compiler (tried: gcc cc) > > > > > > > > Look in config.log > > > > > > > > What does "which gcc" say? > > > > > > --- No config.log is created I'm afraid. All I get for my troubles is the > > > above error message. > > > > What does "which gcc" say? > > --- My gcc is 3.0.3 and is '/usr/local/bin/'. I'm not aware of any unixish system having a "which" that can display that. If I'm wrong, then I'd like to know what "gcc -v" prints. However, I think you are still not answering the question. The question is formed as ``What does "which gcc" say?'' - it may be helpful to you if it instead is formed as a statement: ``Please type "which gcc" in the same environment where that configuration error occurred. Reply to this message with that output.'' And now some explanation: The knee-jerk reaction is to wonder if gcc is even in the $PATH- you say it's in /usr/local/bin, so is _that_ in the path? "which gcc" would answer this question. If it _is_ in the path, then a likely next question is what happens when gcc is run? Show the output. How about "gcc -v"? For some good advice on supporting users, I quote DJB: "Also, don't replace your computer's messages (which, to people who know how to help you, are crystal clear) with your own summaries (which are, as you know, coming from someone who doesn't understand the situation). If the messages take a lot of space, post them on the web." Try to avoid providing the answer you _think_ we are after _instead_ of the one we actually asked for. It's usually okay to do it in supplement (provided it's clear which is which), but avoid doing it _instead_. |
|
From: Ralf H. <Ral...@ch...> - 2003-06-26 07:29:03
|
* Mrs. Brisby <mrs...@ni...>: > ``Please type "which gcc" in the same environment where that > configuration error occurred. Reply to this message with that output.'' Yep. > The knee-jerk reaction is to wonder if gcc is even in the $PATH- you say > it's in /usr/local/bin, so is _that_ in the path? "which gcc" would > answer this question. And: Is it executable at all "gcc -v" will show. > For some good advice on supporting users, I quote DJB: > > "Also, don't replace your computer's messages (which, to people who know > how to help you, are crystal clear) with your own summaries (which are, > as you know, coming from someone who doesn't understand the situation). > If the messages take a lot of space, post them on the web." Exactly. Amen. > Try to avoid providing the answer you _think_ we are after _instead_ of > the one we actually asked for. It's usually okay to do it in supplement > (provided it's clear which is which), but avoid doing it _instead_. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) Ral...@ch... Charite Campus Mitte Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V a - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 AIM: ralfpostfix |
|
From: Ralf H. <Ral...@ch...> - 2003-06-26 07:27:58
|
* David W Smith <dw...@we...>: > > What does "which gcc" say? > > --- My gcc is 3.0.3 and is '/usr/local/bin/'. OK. We try one last time: What is the result of "which gcc" when type on the shell you use to build rdesktop. Can it be this hard? Things to try: # CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc ./configure # which gcc # gcc -v -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) Ral...@ch... Charite Campus Mitte Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V a - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 AIM: ralfpostfix |
|
From: Christopher O. <ode...@hn...> - 2003-07-07 10:09:50
Attachments:
configure.patch
|
Hi,
> > > > > Look in config.log
> > > > >
> > > > > What does "which gcc" say?
> > > >
> > > > --- No config.log is created I'm afraid. All I get for my
> > > > troubles is the above error message.
> > >
> > > What does "which gcc" say?
Had the same problem here:
odenbach@pooh[~]>>which gcc
/usr/local/gnu/bin/gcc
Looks good. BUT: look at this simple shell script:
odenbach@pooh[~]>>m bla
#!/bin/sh
which gcc
odenbach@pooh[~]>>./bla
Loading standard modules...done.
Loading personal modules from ~/.modulefiles ... done.
Loading additional modules from ~/.modulefilesrc openwin X11 gnu rb=20
done.
/usr/local/gnu/bin/gcc
To avoid this just patch the configure file.
Not elegant:
exchange 'which $compiler' by 'which $compiler | tail -1'
More elegant:
Use my attached patch.
Regards,
Christopher
--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dipl.-Ing. Christopher Odenbach
HNI Rechnerbetrieb
ode...@un...
Tel.: +49 5251 60 6215
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
|
From: Mrs. B. <mrs...@ni...> - 2003-07-08 00:48:39
|
1. configure is built from M4. You probably don't want to patch it directly. 2. what shell are you using? 3. can you put these lines above your compiler test? which $compiler > /tmp/foo echo $? >> /tmp/foo attach to an email response. Something is very fishy there. I'd rather use "which $compiler | tail -1" -- but I'd rather still see the exact output. Building on Solaris 7, Solaris 8, and Solaris 9 at my location has generated no such problems. 4. compiling and linking are two separate things. If I want to build a Makefile for a system that I'm _not_ running configure on, then I will not be able to even "run" the compiler. On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 06:09, Christopher Odenbach wrote: > Hi, > > > > > > > Look in config.log > > > > > > > > > > > > What does "which gcc" say? > > > > > > > > > > --- No config.log is created I'm afraid. All I get for my > > > > > troubles is the above error message. > > > > > > > > What does "which gcc" say? > > Had the same problem here: > > odenbach@pooh[~]>>which gcc > /usr/local/gnu/bin/gcc > > Looks good. BUT: look at this simple shell script: > > odenbach@pooh[~]>>m bla > #!/bin/sh > > which gcc > odenbach@pooh[~]>>./bla > Loading standard modules...done. > Loading personal modules from ~/.modulefiles ... done. > Loading additional modules from ~/.modulefilesrc openwin X11 gnu rb > done. > /usr/local/gnu/bin/gcc > > > To avoid this just patch the configure file. > > > Not elegant: > > exchange 'which $compiler' by 'which $compiler | tail -1' > > > More elegant: > > Use my attached patch. > > > Regards, > > Christopher > |
|
From: Christopher O. <ode...@hn...> - 2003-07-08 06:27:18
|
Hi,
> 1. configure is built from M4. You probably don't want to patch it
> directly.
Oh, I didn't know that. Then patch the M4 file.
> 2. what shell are you using?
tcsh
> 3. can you put these lines above your compiler test?
>
> which $compiler > /tmp/foo
> echo $? >> /tmp/foo
Of course:
odenbach@pooh[rdesktop-1.2.0]>>m /tmp/foo=20
Loading standard modules...done.
Loading personal modules from ~/.modulefiles ... done.
Loading additional modules from ~/.modulefilesrc openwin X11 gnu rb=20
done.
/usr/local/gnu/bin/gcc
0
The output "Loading modules..." comes from the .cshrc:
odenbach@pooh[rdesktop-1.2.0]>>tcsh
Loading standard modules...done.
Loading personal modules from ~/.modulefiles ... done.
Loading additional modules from ~/.modulefilesrc openwin X11 gnu rb=20
done.
This outout should only be printed if the shell is interactive:
[...]
if ( $?prompt ) then
echo -n "Loading standard modules..."
[...]
> attach to an email response. Something is very fishy there. I'd
> rather use "which $compiler | tail -1" -- but I'd rather still see
> the exact output. Building on Solaris 7, Solaris 8, and Solaris 9 at
> my location has generated no such problems.
Depends on your .cshrc. The trouble is that you can't force people to=20
take these prints out of their .cshrc. At our institute every user=20
.cshrc includes a global cshrc which does this printing.
> 4. compiling and linking are two separate things. If I want to build
> a Makefile for a system that I'm _not_ running configure on, then I
> will not be able to even "run" the compiler.
I don't agree. The configure step usually prepares the Makefile and=20
perhaps a header-file, so that the source can be compiled just on that=20
machine.
If you have a gcc in your path (which is what you test with 'which'),=20
it should be executable.
Regards,
Christopher
--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dipl.-Ing. Christopher Odenbach
HNI Rechnerbetrieb
ode...@un...
Tel.: +49 5251 60 6215
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
|
From: Mrs. B. <mrs...@ni...> - 2003-07-09 00:34:31
|
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 02:27, Christopher Odenbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 1. configure is built from M4. You probably don't want to patch it
> > directly.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that. Then patch the M4 file.
I'm not so sure that's right either- the patch would go to the
automake/autoconf people, as if it is a bug, that's where it ought to
be... but keep reading.
> > 3. can you put these lines above your compiler test?
> >
> > which $compiler > /tmp/foo
> > echo $? >> /tmp/foo
>
> Of course:
-snip-
> The output "Loading modules..." comes from the .cshrc:
>
> odenbach@pooh[rdesktop-1.2.0]>>tcsh
> Loading standard modules...done.
> Loading personal modules from ~/.modulefiles ... done.
> Loading additional modules from ~/.modulefilesrc openwin X11 gnu rb
> done.
>
>
> This outout should only be printed if the shell is interactive:
>
> [...]
> if ( $?prompt ) then
> echo -n "Loading standard modules..."
> [...]
You're absolutely right, but you're testing absolutely wrong.
[From the Solaris CSH manual page]
The setting of $prompt has three meanings:
$prompt not set - non-interactive shell, test
$?prompt.
$prompt set but == "" - .cshrc called by the
which(1) command.
$prompt set and != "" - normal interactive shell.
Note that this means you should explicitly check for prompt being set to
"". It also means that Sun doesn't consider this a bug, so they'll never
fix it.
> > attach to an email response. Something is very fishy there. I'd
> > rather use "which $compiler | tail -1" -- but I'd rather still see
> > the exact output. Building on Solaris 7, Solaris 8, and Solaris 9 at
> > my location has generated no such problems.
>
> Depends on your .cshrc. The trouble is that you can't force people to
> take these prints out of their .cshrc. At our institute every user
> .cshrc includes a global cshrc which does this printing.
Yes you can and you should. See the manual page for csh, or take my word
for it and see the excerpt above.
> > 4. compiling and linking are two separate things. If I want to build
> > a Makefile for a system that I'm _not_ running configure on, then I
> > will not be able to even "run" the compiler.
>
> I don't agree. The configure step usually prepares the Makefile and
> perhaps a header-file, so that the source can be compiled just on that
> machine.
You don't have to agree. You're still wrong. This is exactly the purpose
of having --host, --build, and --target as separate options, and likely
why the autoconf/automake people use "which gcc" instead of what you do.
|
|
From: Christopher O. <ode...@hn...> - 2003-07-09 15:29:54
|
Hi,
> > This outout should only be printed if the shell is interactive:
> >
> > [...]
> > if ( $?prompt ) then
> > echo -n "Loading standard modules..."
> > [...]
>
> You're absolutely right, but you're testing absolutely wrong.
>
> [From the Solaris CSH manual page]
> The setting of $prompt has three meanings:
[...]
Ah, this makes things clearer. Thanks a lot - this bug has been there=20
about 10 years now I think... :-)
> Note that this means you should explicitly check for prompt being set
> to "". It also means that Sun doesn't consider this a bug, so they'll
> never fix it.
Of course not.
By the way: Do you know any cunning trick to test for the existance and=20
the emptiness of $prompt? My first try
if ( $?prompt && $prompt !=3D "" ) then
gives an "Undefined variable" error. Unfortunately the shell tries to=20
evaluate both expressions instead of only the first one (which already=20
is false so the second one does not have to be evaluated).
Thanks,
Christopher
--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dipl.-Ing. Christopher Odenbach
HNI Rechnerbetrieb
ode...@un...
Tel.: +49 5251 60 6215
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
|
From: Mrs. B. <mrs...@ni...> - 2003-07-10 01:32:38
|
-- To others first; I had forgotten rdesktop doesn't have a gnu autoconf yet... disregard my nyqil-induced brain-fart regarding it. in retrospect, would anyone object to an autoconf-maintained configure script? I can cobble one together in a short period... On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 11:29, Christopher Odenbach wrote: > Hi, > > > > This outout should only be printed if the shell is interactive: > > > > > > [...] > > > if ( $?prompt ) then > > > echo -n "Loading standard modules..." > > > [...] > > > > You're absolutely right, but you're testing absolutely wrong. > > > > [From the Solaris CSH manual page] > > The setting of $prompt has three meanings: > [...] > > Ah, this makes things clearer. Thanks a lot - this bug has been there > about 10 years now I think... :-) > > > Note that this means you should explicitly check for prompt being set > > to "". It also means that Sun doesn't consider this a bug, so they'll > > never fix it. > > Of course not. > > By the way: Do you know any cunning trick to test for the existance and > the emptiness of $prompt? My first try > > if ( $?prompt && $prompt != "" ) then > > gives an "Undefined variable" error. Unfortunately the shell tries to > evaluate both expressions instead of only the first one (which already > is false so the second one does not have to be evaluated). Not to start shell wards, but I don't use CSH for a lot of the reasons in: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ AFAIK, $-expansion occurs during evaluation, so there isn't a particularly shortcut way of doing it (short of producing a subshell) HOWEVER, using $?0 _may_ give you what you want... It asks if the current input filename is known- if it is, then we're certainly not interactive. I'll use the korn shell, but I do prefer bash. the proper borne shell is about good enough to compile bash, so that's about all I ever see of it. |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X