OpenOffice compilation Failures, LFS Unstable

Nathan Coulson conathan at gmail.com
Mon Dec 27 14:48:17 PST 2004


On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:32:37 -0700, Nathan Coulson <conathan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:43:50 -0600 (CST), blfs-dev at lucasit.com
> <blfs-dev at lucasit.com> wrote:
> > > blfs-dev at lucasit.com wrote:
> >
> > Ugh...I need to fix that in webmail.
> >
> > >> I know it's fine
> > >> with glibc from 20040701 and gcc-3.3.4.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, Nathan was using something other than a default LFS-6.0
> > > build. If so, let's not worry about it for now. If it was an LFS-6.0
> > > build, we need to figure out why your build is different than his. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it is definately on the back burner for now.  Way too much to get
> > done before BLFS-6.0.  I'll BZ it for future.  Nathan's original post said
> > "when testing updates glibc..."  Having said that, anyone that has seen
> > this issue, I'd like to know what glibc, gcc and binutils versions you are
> > using.  For right now, I still suspect glibc, but who knows?  The expected
> > window to find the cause of the breakage is around 4 months...awfull big
> > window to work with when rebuilding glibc. :-)  Maybe I can eliminate the
> > compiler with an overnight build later this week.  Binutils I'll have to
> > see about after current OOo (the desktop-file-utils note is
> > wrong..building kde now) and the two courier bugs.
> >
> > -- DJ Lucas
> 
> BTW, I think I mentioned this was LFS unstable in my origional email
> 
> binutils 2.15.94.0.1
> gcc 3.3.4 (compiled to /opt)
> and glibc 1122
> compiling openoffice 1.1.4 [got the same thing compiling 1.1.2]

Reading up on what I have seen, my guess would be that fedora added
extra checks to glibc [aka, guarding against calling free twice on the
same pointer].

-- 
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
------
nathan at linuxfromscratch org
conathan at gmail com



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list