[gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[David Relson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1060 bytes --]

As background, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233097 has an
experimental, unsupported ebuild for openwatcom-1.7.1 and it doesn't
quite work :-<

The ebuild's src_compile function is:

    src_compile() {
        ./build.sh || die "build.sh failed"
    }

When I run "emerge =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1", the build fails with

    /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
    i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is
    incompatible with i386 output distcc[16016] ERROR: compile (null)
    on localhost failed

The full output of the emerge command is in the attached file.

Alternatively, I can manually unpack and build with commands:

    ebuild =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1.ebuild unpack
    cd /var/tmp/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
    ./build.sh

With the steps performed manually, the compilation works properly.

Anybody familiar with the "i386:x86-64 ... incompatible ... i386"
message and know what it means?

Any suggestions on ebuild changes to correct this behavior?

Thanks !

David

[-- Attachment #2: dev-lang:openwatcom-1.7.1:20091114-132414.log --]
[-- Type: text/x-log, Size: 1953 bytes --]

>>> Unpacking source...
>>> Unpacking open_watcom_1.7.1-src.tar.bz2 to /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
 ^[[32;01m*^[[0m Applying build.sh.patch ...
^[[A^[[71C  ^[[34;01m[ ^[[32;01mok^[[34;01m ]^[[0m
>>> Source unpacked in /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
>>> Compiling source in /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work ...
Open Watcom compiler build environment
mkdir bootstrp
cc -c -funsigned-char -fno-common -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-switch -Ibootstrp -Ih -I../watcom/h -I../lib_misc/h -D__LINUX__ -D__UNIX__= -DUNIX -Uunix -DBOOTSTRAP -DWMAKE -Ibootstrp -o bootstrp/wsplice.o ../builder/c/wsplice.c
cc -c -funsigned-char -fno-common -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-switch -Ibootstrp -Ih -I../watcom/h -I../lib_misc/h -D__LINUX__ -D__UNIX__= -DUNIX -Uunix -DBOOTSTRAP -DWMAKE -Ibootstrp -o bootstrp/clibext.o ../watcom/c/clibext.c
cc -g bootstrp/wsplice.o bootstrp/clibext.o -o bootstrp/wsplice
collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/wsplice.o' is incompatible with i386 output
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is incompatible with i386 output
distcc[16016] ERROR: compile (null) on localhost failed
make: *** [bootstrp/wsplice] Error 1
./build.sh: line 19: wmake: command not found
./build.sh: line 22: builder: command not found
>>> Source compiled.
>>> Test phase [not enabled]: dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1

>>> Install openwatcom-1.7.1 into /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/image/ category dev-lang
cp: cannot stat `rel2': No such file or directory
ln: creating symbolic link `/var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/image//opt/openwatcom/bin': No such file or directory
>>> Completed installing openwatcom-1.7.1 into /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/image/

>>> Done.

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Xavier Parizet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

David Relson a écrit :
> As background, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233097 has an
> experimental, unsupported ebuild for openwatcom-1.7.1 and it doesn't
> quite work :-<
> 
> The ebuild's src_compile function is:
> 
>     src_compile() {
>         ./build.sh || die "build.sh failed"
>     }
> 
> When I run "emerge =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1", the build fails with
> 
>     /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
>     i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is
>     incompatible with i386 output distcc[16016] ERROR: compile (null)
>     on localhost failed

You use distcc. But seems to be not well configured. Just disable distcc to
build the package (FEATURES=-distcc in /etc/make.conf).

HTH.

> The full output of the emerge command is in the attached file.
> 
> Alternatively, I can manually unpack and build with commands:
> 
>     ebuild =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1.ebuild unpack
>     cd /var/tmp/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
>     ./build.sh
> 
> With the steps performed manually, the compilation works properly.
> 
> Anybody familiar with the "i386:x86-64 ... incompatible ... i386"
> message and know what it means?
> 
> Any suggestions on ebuild changes to correct this behavior?
> 
> Thanks !
> 
> David
> 


-- 
      Xavier Parizet
YaGB :   http://gentooist.com
GPG  :    C7DC B10E FC21 63BE
B453 D239 F6E6 DF65 1569 91BF


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 259 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[David Relson]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:21:50 +0100
Xavier Parizet wrote:

> David Relson a écrit :
> > As background, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233097 has an
> > experimental, unsupported ebuild for openwatcom-1.7.1 and it doesn't
> > quite work :-<
> > 
> > The ebuild's src_compile function is:
> > 
> >     src_compile() {
> >         ./build.sh || die "build.sh failed"
> >     }
> > 
> > When I run "emerge =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1", the build fails with
> > 
> >     /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
> >     i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is
> >     incompatible with i386 output distcc[16016] ERROR: compile
> > (null) on localhost failed
> 
> You use distcc. But seems to be not well configured. Just disable
> distcc to build the package (FEATURES=-distcc in /etc/make.conf).
> 
> HTH.

Xavier,

It helps a lot!  I had installed distcc, but never quite got it
working.  Getting it working is on my TODO list, but I hadn't thought
of it when the problem occurred.

Thanks!

David

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Daniel Pielmeier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]

David Relson schrieb am 14.11.2009 21:33:
> As background, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233097 has an
> experimental, unsupported ebuild for openwatcom-1.7.1 and it doesn't
> quite work :-<
> 
> The ebuild's src_compile function is:
> 
>     src_compile() {
>         ./build.sh || die "build.sh failed"
>     }
> 
> When I run "emerge =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1", the build fails with
> 
>     /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
>     i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is
>     incompatible with i386 output distcc[16016] ERROR: compile (null)
>     on localhost failed
> 
> The full output of the emerge command is in the attached file.
> 
> Alternatively, I can manually unpack and build with commands:
> 
>     ebuild =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1.ebuild unpack
>     cd /var/tmp/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
>     ./build.sh
> 
> With the steps performed manually, the compilation works properly.
> 
> Anybody familiar with the "i386:x86-64 ... incompatible ... i386"
> message and know what it means?
> 
> Any suggestions on ebuild changes to correct this behavior?
> 
> Thanks !
> 
> David

Do you use distcc? Try if the ebuild works with temporary disabling
distcc. If distcc is to blame, fixing wont be that easy. You have to
examine build.sh and fix it in order to work with distcc.

-- 
Daniel Pielmeier


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 261 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 560 bytes --]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:12:31 +0100, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:

> Do you use distcc? Try if the ebuild works with temporary disabling
> distcc. If distcc is to blame, fixing wont be that easy. You have to
> examine build.sh and fix it in order to work with distcc.

Or disable distcc in the ebuild.

Or add FEATURES="-distcc" to /etc/portage/env/dev-land/openwatcom-1.7.1
Create whatever of the path is missing.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There is so much sand in Northern Africa that if it were spread out it
would completely cover the Sahara Desert.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Daniel Pielmeier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1638 bytes --]

David Relson schrieb am 14.11.2009 21:33:
> As background, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233097 has an
> experimental, unsupported ebuild for openwatcom-1.7.1 and it doesn't
> quite work :-<
> 
> The ebuild's src_compile function is:
> 
>     src_compile() {
>         ./build.sh || die "build.sh failed"
>     }
> 
> When I run "emerge =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1", the build fails with
> 
>     /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
>     i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is
>     incompatible with i386 output distcc[16016] ERROR: compile (null)
>     on localhost failed
> 
> The full output of the emerge command is in the attached file.
> 
> Alternatively, I can manually unpack and build with commands:
> 
>     ebuild =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1.ebuild unpack
>     cd /var/tmp/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
>     ./build.sh
> 
> With the steps performed manually, the compilation works properly.
> 
> Anybody familiar with the "i386:x86-64 ... incompatible ... i386"
> message and know what it means?
> 
> Any suggestions on ebuild changes to correct this behavior?
> 
> Thanks !
> 
> David

Okay, this is not a distcc problem.

From looking at the bug. Do you really think by just tricking the
architecture check to accept x86_64 will make it magically compile. You
can't be serious! This software does not build on x86_64 at the moment.
If you don't have the appropriate programming skills to fix this
yourself you have to wait for the openwatcom developers to make it
x86_64 ready.

-- 
Daniel Pielmeier


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 261 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[David Relson]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:34:46 +0100
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:

> David Relson schrieb am 14.11.2009 21:33:
> > As background, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233097 has an
> > experimental, unsupported ebuild for openwatcom-1.7.1 and it doesn't
> > quite work :-<
> > 
> > The ebuild's src_compile function is:
> > 
> >     src_compile() {
> >         ./build.sh || die "build.sh failed"
> >     }
> > 
> > When I run "emerge =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1", the build fails with
> > 
> >     /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
> >     i386:x86-64 architecture of input file `bootstrp/clibext.o' is
> >     incompatible with i386 output distcc[16016] ERROR: compile
> > (null) on localhost failed
> > 
> > The full output of the emerge command is in the attached file.
> > 
> > Alternatively, I can manually unpack and build with commands:
> > 
> >     ebuild =dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1.ebuild unpack
> >     cd /var/tmp/dev-lang/openwatcom-1.7.1/work
> >     ./build.sh
> > 
> > With the steps performed manually, the compilation works properly.
> > 
> > Anybody familiar with the "i386:x86-64 ... incompatible ... i386"
> > message and know what it means?
> > 
> > Any suggestions on ebuild changes to correct this behavior?
> > 
> > Thanks !
> > 
> > David
> 
> Okay, this is not a distcc problem.
> 
> From looking at the bug. Do you really think by just tricking the
> architecture check to accept x86_64 will make it magically compile.
> You can't be serious! This software does not build on x86_64 at the
> moment. If you don't have the appropriate programming skills to fix
> this yourself you have to wait for the openwatcom developers to make
> it x86_64 ready.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Pielmeier

Daniel,

A detail I meant to include in my original posting is that I'm
attempting the build on (and for) a 32 bit machine.  So distcc _is_
the problem.

The lack of 64-bit buildability for openwatcom is a whole 'nother
subject and I'm in communication with the developer about it.

Regards,

David

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 15 November 2009 06:07:59 David Relson wrote:
> The lack of 64-bit buildability for openwatcom is a whole 'nother
> subject and I'm in communication with the developer about it.
> 

Is this the very famous watcom compiler that's been around longer than MS-DOS 
and eventually ended up being owned by Sybase?

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[David Relson]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:29:12 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On Sunday 15 November 2009 06:07:59 David Relson wrote:
> > The lack of 64-bit buildability for openwatcom is a whole 'nother
> > subject and I'm in communication with the developer about it.
> > 
> 
> Is this the very famous watcom compiler that's been around longer
> than MS-DOS and eventually ended up being owned by Sybase?

You are correct -- though lacking the "Sybase released it to the open
source world" detail. 

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 15 November 2009 15:44:16 David Relson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:29:12 +0200
> 
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 November 2009 06:07:59 David Relson wrote:
> > > The lack of 64-bit buildability for openwatcom is a whole 'nother
> > > subject and I'm in communication with the developer about it.
> >
> > Is this the very famous watcom compiler that's been around longer
> > than MS-DOS and eventually ended up being owned by Sybase?
> 
> You are correct -- though lacking the "Sybase released it to the open
> source world" detail.

Sybase actually release the source to something? Surely you jest?

I used to work for the local Sybase reseller. I would not have thought 
management would ever have open-sourced anything.

Well, well, whaddayaknow. Miracles do happen.

watcom was a very nice compiler back in the day. I remember it trashing the 
pants off anything else in the market (this was in the DOS-3.x era)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[David Relson]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:06:27 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On Sunday 15 November 2009 15:44:16 David Relson wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:29:12 +0200
> > 
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On Sunday 15 November 2009 06:07:59 David Relson wrote:
> > > > The lack of 64-bit buildability for openwatcom is a whole
> > > > 'nother subject and I'm in communication with the developer
> > > > about it.
> > >
> > > Is this the very famous watcom compiler that's been around longer
> > > than MS-DOS and eventually ended up being owned by Sybase?
> > 
> > You are correct -- though lacking the "Sybase released it to the
> > open source world" detail.
> 
> Sybase actually release the source to something? Surely you jest?
> 
> I used to work for the local Sybase reseller. I would not have
> thought management would ever have open-sourced anything.
> 
> Well, well, whaddayaknow. Miracles do happen.
> 
> watcom was a very nice compiler back in the day. I remember it
> trashing the pants off anything else in the market (this was in the
> DOS-3.x era)

For more on Watcom C's history, including the Sybase release as open
source, see http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/History

I used Watcom C quite a bit in the mid '90s to develop a bookkeepping
program for Michigan Bingo games, and even made some spending money
off of the project :->  

At that time, my host operating system was 32-bit OS/2 and the target
was 16-bit DOS.  Watcom worked like a champion for me!

Re: [gentoo-user] openwatcom ebuild question

[Daniel Pielmeier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

David Relson schrieb am 15.11.2009 05:07:
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> A detail I meant to include in my original posting is that I'm
> attempting the build on (and for) a 32 bit machine.  So distcc _is_
> the problem.
>
> The lack of 64-bit buildability for openwatcom is a whole 'nother
> subject and I'm in communication with the developer about it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 

Everything correct. I was just confused as there were two problems
distcc on one hand and the 64bit problem in the other hand.

-- 
Daniel Pielmeier


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 261 bytes --]