Before my last update, I switched from gcc 4.6 to gcc 4.7 (some
package required 4.7 -- I don't remember which one).
Now jed fails:
$ jed --batch
loading /usr/share/jed/lib/site.sl
loading /usr/share/jed/lib/os.sl
loading /usr/share/jed/lib/menus.sl
loading /etc/jed.conf
Unable to open compress. Check the value of the S-Lang load path.
/etc/jed.conf:9:<top-level>:Open failed
Traceback: evalfile
/usr/share/jed/lib/site.sl:3324:<top-level>:Open failed
Looking at the strace output:
open("/etc/jed.conf", O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 4
write(1, "loading /etc/jed.conf\n", 22) = 22
read(4, "% -*- slang -*-\n\n% This is a sam"..., 4096) = 328
read(4, "", 3768) = 0
stat64("/usr/share/jed/lib\213V\267\335\377vF/usr/share/slsh\213V\267/usr/share/slsh/local-packages/compress",
0xbff4f$
stat64("/usr/share/jed/lib\213V\267\335\377vF/usr/share/slsh\213V\267/usr/share/slsh/local-packages/compress.slc",
0xb$
stat64("/usr/share/jed/lib\213V\267\335\377vF/usr/share/slsh\213V\267/usr/share/slsh/local-packages/compress.sl",
0xbf$
stat64("/usr/share/jed/lib\213V\267\335\377vF/usr/share/slsh\213V\267/usr/share/slsh/local-packages/compress.slc",
0xb$
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [], [], 8) = 0
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [], NULL, 8) = 0
close(4) = 0
write(2, "Unable to open compress. Check "..., 68) = 68
write(2, "/etc/jed.conf:9:<top-level>:Open"..., 40) = 40
write(2, "Traceback: evalfile\n", 20) = 20
write(2, "/usr/share/jed/lib/site.sl:3324:"..., 56) = 56
close(3) = 0
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [], [], 8) = 0
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [], NULL, 8) = 0
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [], [], 8) = 0
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [], NULL, 8) = 0
exit_group(30) = ?
The path names being passed to the stat64() calls are garbage, they
should be "/usr/share/jed/lib/compress" and so on.
Re-emerging jed and slang using gcc 4.6 fixes the problem.
Googling the "Check the value of the S-Lang load path" shows similar
problems showing up on RedHat and Debian systems a few months back.
One posted solution was to switch from -O2 to -O0 when building slang.
Others say the problem was caused by an upgrade to glibc.
Is it possible to configure portage to use a particular version of gcc
just for one or two packages?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Were these parsnips
at CORRECTLY MARINATED in
gmail.com TACO SAUCE?
