On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Richard Atterer wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:04:56PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote: > > (Yes, jigdo-port is the only one that compiles on AIX for us. C++ > > isn't exactly portable. :/) > > Oh - but the file format has changed, and the latest jigdo files are > no longer readable by jigdo-port! :-( I *really* want to avoid having > to update two different programs whenever I make a change, so I have > no plans to fix jigdo-port. > > [Standard rant: C++ *is* portable, and the standard has been out for 3 > years - it's about time everybody caught up with it! Maybe gcc is > boot-strappable on AIX... But I realize that would be quite a lot of > work just to compile jigdo-file. :-( ]
3 years is a very short time. We have a fairly updated system, but 3 years is well below the time a system might be around without any updates other than security upgrades. The version is: VisualAge C++ Professional / C for AIX Compiler, Version 5 And that is a new compiler, not a very old one. I know of a few sites that run much older ones. Some configure output: checking whether the C++ compiler is recent enough... no * Your compiler failed to recognize some advanced C++ * constructs. This means that it is probably too old. * In case compilation fails, try upgrading to a newer * compiler, e.g. GCC 2.95 or later. It then procedes to fail to find db_create in -ldb[lots of versions] despite that being installed. --without-libdb gives a failure later on at: checking whether dgettext works... no * Make sure gettext is installed, or use * --disable-nls to switch off gettext support. configure: error: dgettext() call could not be linked. Also some "interesting" features turns up, like: checking size of unsigned long... 0 checking size of unsigned long long... 0 With g++ (and a bunch of hacking), it compiles but fails to link. I haven't had time to take a better look at it yet, or turn the software over to someone else around here. It is still painful, especially compared to jigdo-port which compiled cleanly and without problems. > > The important part is that the result looks exactly like the one on > > the master site so I can do an inexpensive rsync to get "everything" > > right. > > Should be possible. However, the template files include an md5sum of > the images, which is checked by jigdo; if jigdo says that the file has > been regenerated OK, it *is* OK and no extra rsync run is necessary. > > OTOH, it might make sense to fall back to rsync if not all of the > parts in an image could be retrieved. I could add that to the script. It isn't for the images, it is for having all the other files and directories looking exactly like the master site, a true mirror. That is why I want the same directory structure, so that it will find the images with the correct size and not bother with them. If rsync believes it has to sync the images, it will put a great deal of load on both sides, even if the data is still the same. /Mattias Wadenstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
