On 2022.09.10 13:56, David Haller wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2022, Jack wrote:
>I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages:
libofx-0.10.7
>and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the same
problem for a
>few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot create
Jack wrote:
> On 9/10/22 14:49, Dale wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages:
>>> libofx-0.10.7 and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the
>>> same problem for a few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot
>>> create exectuables."
On 9/10/22 14:49, Dale wrote:
Jack wrote:
I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages:
libofx-0.10.7 and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the
same problem for a few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot
create exectuables."
The relevant lines from
Jack wrote:
> I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages:
> libofx-0.10.7 and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the
> same problem for a few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot
> create exectuables."
>
> The relevant lines from build.log are
>
> checking
Hello,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2022, Jack wrote:
>I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages: libofx-0.10.7
>and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the same problem for a
>few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot create exectuables."
>
>The relevant lines from
On 9/10/22 11:42, Arve Barsnes wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 17:28, Jack wrote:
Any thoughts or suggestions?
I feel like this is an error that tends to pop up when your toolchain
is broken. Are you able to re-emerge gcc?
gcc11.3.0 re-emerge with no errors, bug the problem remains.
I note
On 9/10/22 11:42, Arve Barsnes wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 17:28, Jack wrote:
Any thoughts or suggestions?
I feel like this is an error that tends to pop up when your toolchain
is broken. Are you able to re-emerge gcc?
Reasonable thought. I've just kicked of a re-emerge of gcc. I'll
On Sat, 10 Sept 2022 at 17:28, Jack wrote:
> Any thoughts or suggestions?
I feel like this is an error that tends to pop up when your toolchain
is broken. Are you able to re-emerge gcc?
Regards,
Arve
I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages:
libofx-0.10.7 and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the
same problem for a few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot
create exectuables."
The relevant lines from build.log are
checking for
Michael Sullivan wrote:
I downloaded the stage 3 tarball and found the files I need and copied
them over. It worked. I'm in the process of emergine --emptytree
binutils and gcc atm...
That works, but I would have attempted playing with binutils-config first.
--
[Name ] :: [Matan I.
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up. Whenever I try to emerge
anything I get this message:
checking for C compiler default output... configure: error: C compiler
cannot create executables
It also says See config.log for
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:05 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up. Whenever I try to emerge
anything I get this message:
checking for C compiler default output... configure: error: C compiler
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 10:09 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:05 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up. Whenever I try to emerge
anything I get this message:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 10:09 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:05 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up. Whenever I try to emerge
anything I get this message:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:21 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 10:09 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:05 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up.
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:21 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 10:09 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:05 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up.
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up. Whenever I try to emerge
anything I get this message:
checking for C compiler default output... configure: error: C compiler
cannot create executables
It also says See config.log for details, but I can't find config.log -
it doesn't give a full
Search forums: many posts exist.
Try using gcc-config and fix_libtool.sh as a starter.
BillK
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 22:49 -0600, Michael Sullivan wrote:
I think I've somehow managed to screw gcc up. Whenever I try to emerge
anything I get this message:
checking for C compiler default
When I try to bootstrap a Power Macintosh 8500, I get this error from
/usr/portage/scripts/bootstrap.sh:
emerge (1 of 7) sys-apps/textinfo-4.7.-r1 to /
!!! Cannot create log... No write access / Does not exist
!!! PORT_LOGDIR: /var/log/portage
!!! Cannot create log... No write access / Does
On 5/27/05, Colin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error: C
compiler cannot create executables
See 'config.log' for more details.
/var/tmp/portage/texinfo-4.7-r1/work/texinfo-4.7/config.log is available
if needed. I really don't want
Bruno Lustosa wrote:
On 5/27/05, Colin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error: C
compiler cannot create executables
See 'config.log' for more details.
/var/tmp/portage/texinfo-4.7-r1/work/texinfo-4.7/config.log is available
if needed.
On 5/27/05, Colin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I found it. I changed -fstack_protector to -fstack-protector and
now it's compiling. It bugs me how some CFLAGS use underscores, others
dashes, and some use both.
That underscore is a Darwin specific thing. Darwin gcc maintainers are
not
22 matches
Mail list logo
