From xemacs-m  Sun Jan  5 03:39:50 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
          by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id DAA11088 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 03:39:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
          by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id BAA05966; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:50:00 -0800
Sender: steve@xemacs.org
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Build report XEmacs 20.0-b34 Linux 2 success
References: <199701050903.EAA29703@dres.elam.org>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
In-Reply-To: James LewisMoss's message of Sun, 05 Jan 1997 04:03:54 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 05 Jan 1997 01:49:58 -0800
Message-ID: <m2sp4gxxh5.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 101
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.72/XEmacs 20.0

>>>>> "James" == James LewisMoss <dres@dres.elam.org> writes:

>>>>> "SB" == Stephen L Baur writes:

SB> Was your NAS built from source?  The sources the XEmacs FAQ point
SB> to didn't build when I tried them. :-(

James> They were a pain to build, but yes built from source.  I'm not
James> actually still using it because the sound output is awful (in
James> comparison to a file catted to the device).

O.K.  I can survive without sound for awhile longer, I think. :-(

James> 1) lisp/prim/files-nomule.el patch was bad. patch rejected
James> it. removing that patch and mostly clean thereafter.

SB> files-nomule.el in beta33 was missing a trailing linefeed.

James> I fixed it manually.  Not sure why it was rejected.

James> 2) got these rejections:

SB> Noted, though I don't know what to say.

James> I did use -p0 to patch, and I'm betting these are the same as
James> incorrect placement below.

O.K.  I looked up the updates to patch, because this problem was
hashed out in detail several months back on the linux-kernel mailing
list (but not before I got a whole bunch of new device drivers dropped
in the directory I patch the linux kernel from :-().  The `home' URL
for the fixed patch is:
	ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl:/pub/linux/gnu-fixed/

I'm using patch-2.1a, but I notice a patch-2.1b there too.  I put a
copy on ftp.xemacs.org in /pub/beta/contrib.

James> 4) oddity: configure says I'm cross-compiling. (I'm not :)

SB> This is an error in configure.  Try adding --verbose or
SB> --extra-verbose and see if you see anything helpful.

James> Was using it. Nothing useful. Just:
James> ...
James> checking for sigsetjmp
James>         defining HAVE_SIGSETJMP
James> checking whether localtime caches TZ
James> checking whether cross-compiling
James>         yes
James>         defining LOCALTIME_CACHE
James> checking for whether gettimeofday can't accept two arguments
James>         no
James> ...
James> Doesn't cause a problem, and I've encountered it many times in the
James> past with other configured programs.  

This is odd.  Here is the shell code it's failing on:

test -n "$silent" || echo "checking whether cross-compiling"
# If we cannot run a trivial program, we must be cross compiling.
cat > conftest.${ac_ext} <<EOF
#include "confdefs.h"
main(){exit(0);}
EOF
eval $ac_compile
if test -s conftest && (./conftest; exit) 2>/dev/null; then
  :
else
  cross_compiling=1
fi
rm -fr conftest*

if test -n "$cross_compiling"
then
  # If we have tzset, assume the worst when cross-compiling.
emacs_cv_localtime_cache=yes
 ...

I wouldn't treat this lightly, perhaps you could try adding a `set -x'
before that region of code and see what that shows.

James> 5) patch instead of placing auto-autoloads.el into lisp/prim
James> it placed it in the top level directory.

SB> Did you specify -p0 to patch?  This is a known problem with
SB> patch. There is a modified patch in the Netherlands that is
SB> kinder in its treatment of new files.

James> Yea I did specify -p0 guess it just bombed on this one for some
James> odd reason.  Patch was pretty flaky (seeing as I had three
James> errors from it).

I've got one Linux machine running a kernel patched up into the
2.0.20's from 1.3.62 (over 70 patches applied).  Patch is not
necessarily an inherently flaky program when the patches are built
correctly.
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.
"That Bill Clinton.  He probably doesn't know how to log on to the
Internet."  -- Rush Limbaugh, noted Computer Expert

