Re: [dev] [wmii] Build problems with the tips of wmii and libixp

From: Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:41:02 -0400

On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:25:21 +0200
Juan Pablo Aroztegi <jpabloae_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to build the latest tip of wmii (97d57038e60a) and libixp
> (b2b7cb840090). I'm facing the following issues which end up in a
> similar manner:
>
> * wmii:
>
> CC lib/libstuff/util/_die.o
> In file included from /usr/include/bits/sigcontext.h:28,
> from /usr/include/sys/ucontext.h:27,
> from /usr/include/signal.h:359,
> from lib/libstuff/util/_die.c:4:
> /usr/include/asm/sigcontext.h:96: error: declaration does not declare
> anything make[2]: *** [util/_die.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [dall] Error 2
> make: *** [dall] Error 2
>
> * libixp:
>
> CC lib/libixp/socket.o
> In file included from /usr/include/bits/sigcontext.h:28,
> from /usr/include/sys/ucontext.h:27,
> from /usr/include/signal.h:359,
> from lib/libixp/socket.c:8:
> /usr/include/asm/sigcontext.h:96: error: declaration does not declare
> anything make[2]: *** [socket.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [dall] Error 2
> make: *** [dall] Error 2
>
> I can build wmii's 3.9-1 tag without problems, as well as rev
> d8b0d0508291 of libixp. I'm on Linux with gcc 4.3.4. What could be
> happening?

Looking at the file, I'm guessing that you're on i386. It looks like
that particular header uses anonymous unions on i386 (only) for some
reason, and in hg, I've added the -pedantic-errors CFLAG. Usually the
system headers are better at dealing with such things. For that matter,
I'd expect gcc to ignore the setting in system headers anyway.

At any rate, can you try changing -pedantic-errors to -pedantic in
mk/gcc.mk?

> On the other hand I see that the wmii repository now has 2 heads. If
> the goal is to have a 3.9 maintenance branch and another one for the
> main development, maybe it would be worth it to use named branches?
> Unless it's a short life head.

It's actually had two heads for ages, but one of them wasn't
intentional. As for named branches, I'm generally not a fan. They're a
relatively new feature, so they don't really seem like the ‘hg way’ to
me. At any rate, I don't intend much maintenance in that branch in the
future. The only reason it's there is because there were build problems
with the release.

-- 
Kris Maglione
It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you
will be when you can't help it.
	--Oscar Wilde
Received on Wed May 26 2010 - 20:41:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 26 2010 - 20:48:01 UTC