stat and fstat undefined references
I recently upgraded my system to libc6, with most of the other programs going with it. Now I'm trying to compile the Modula 3 bootstrap compiler (to try to get the whole shebang going under libc6), and I get a heap of undefined references to stat and fstat. Before anybody starts jumping up and down, yes, I have read the FAQ in /usr/doc/libc6, I have noted the advice in question 17, and I have verified that /usr/lib/libc.so contains the recommended line. It still doesn't want to work. The command line is, effectively: gcc -g -o quake *.o -lm (there's a few -I and -D parameters as well, which should have no effect.) I've got libc6 and libc6-dev, version 2.0.5c-0.1, installed. plaintive cry Does anybody have any advice for me?? /plaintive cry All responses greatly appreciated. (The university closes in five hours, and I won't have access to the 'Net until it re-opens, so there's not much rush :) Cheers... a Merry Christmas to you all, and may you have a safe and Happy New Year. Stuart. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: lock a pentium for fun!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Ted writes: : Someone wondered (as one does) what might possibly happen if you tried : the unassigned codes. : : It is a bug for a processor to have any unassigned codes. : : In what way is it a bug? If all the codes are assigned, then future : extensions become impossible. Say, rather, that it is a bug for a processor to have any unassigned codes that do not generate an illegal instruction trap. I understand that several codes fit this bill on the Pentium... -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Help Kernel Oops!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : Sorry, there's little to be learned from raw kernel OOPS messages : without seeing the full system and kernel configurations and versions. : (As far as I know.) There's some detail in the kernel documentation about reporting OOPS messages.. I can't remember it all offhand, but some of it (at least) is along the lines of looking up addresses in System.map to find the mapping to functions. Certainly, a raw oops without that information is pretty much useless. -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Infomagic LDR debian, and, What's Hamm and Bo?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Why the heck doesn't Debian use the release number (e.g., 1.3, 1.3.x) as : the primary (canonical) name? Then when you seem 1.2 and 1.3, you can : tell which is newer and which is older. That was done one time: whilst 1.0 was being developed, it was stored on the archive as 1.0. InfoMagic saw this, thought Oooh, goody! and put it on their Debian CD. It wasn't complete. It was severely broken. This led to the current system of stable and unstable, with version numbers only being setup when the current version is/was complete. Just FWIW. -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: is the Creative Labs AWE64 GOLD Soundcard supported?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] : Let me say that the awe driver package works just fine with a SB AWE32. : Don`t know about the 64 yet. Any people tried? I would suspect that it would work fine with the 64 as well. AFAIK, the AWE64 is the same as the 32, except for the extra 32 voices. Oh, and the extra 32 voices are done in software, not hardware, so unless the driver has support coded specifically for those 32 voices (which implies tying up the CPU to do this), you'll find you're stuck with the first 32 anyway. Fscking Windoze hardware.. (generic rant :) -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Applixware
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 06:56:55 -0400, Tom Malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Is anyone using redhats applixware on debian? How is it? The install : difficult? Is it worth buying? I want to migrate away from msoffice and : use linux exclusively if possible. Thanks : : : Try out StarOffice before you decide which office suit to use together : with Linux. I have found it very nice ... and version 3.1 is free if : you use it in a non-commercial purpose. : : Check it out at: : http://www.stardiv.de/ : : I don't think you'll find any difficulties installing Applixware. If : I'm right there is an non-rpm installation included on the cd. I've had a play around with StarOffice; the main reason I didn't get it is because I don't have a 'Net connection at home, and the prospect of lugging everything back on 1.44MB floppies doesn't really appeal. I've forked out $99AUS for the student edition of Applixware; it's nice. Very nice. My only beef: the non-rpm installation tries to install everything into /opt. Not a good move, especially since my 30MB root partition only had 15MB free I ended up test driving Redhat for a while on my /home partition (don't ask, please); whilst I was dding that, I installed Applixware somewhere in /usr/local. (under Debian, that would have been /home/usr/local/ ... as I said, don't ask :) Tar it up, untar it into the Debian /usr/local heirachy, and everything is happy happy joy joy. (with some script editing, of course.) One of these days, I might get around to doing some work on an installation package. In my Copious Spare Time, naturally. ;) -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCS d-(++) s+:- a-- C++$ UL+++()$ P-(---) L++(+++)+++$ !E--- W+(--)-- N+(++) o+++ K- !w--- !O- !M- !V- PS+ PE Y(+) PGP t 5 !X !R tv-(--)! b++() DI+(+) D++(---) G+ e++ h++ !r+++ y? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
NFS mounting /usr
The situation: here at the Monash library, myself and a colleague are setting up three or four Debian systems. The intention is that, by NFS mounting /usr, the space required to hold the binaries (not insignificant at the best of times :-) should be greatly reduced, along with the redundancy of three or four copies of everything. The problem arises with the prospect of upgrading the systems that are NFS mounting the drive to later versions of various packages - /var, /etc, /sbin, and /bin will end up out of sync at some point. I'm just looking for input with regards to how other people have dealt with this problem - or is it a non-issue? (which I'd find hard to believe... a trivial issue, perhaps, but not a non-issue :) Any and all information would be appreciated. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: VIM Editor
William Chow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Mr Stuart Lamble wrote: [...] There shouldn't be. Which version of vim do you have installed? When I changed the compilation procedure to configure vim with X support, I created two versions - one for 1.2 (which, at the time, was slated to use 3.1.2), and one for unstable (shortly to become 1.3). Well, I think I'm using one of the more current stable versions, the one that came with the current stable (1.2). I did not use unstable. Is vim supposed to be dynamically linked to the Xaw library? I and another user have reported that an ldd does NOT in fact show it to be dynamically linked to any X11 libraries. Is there one that has X support and one that doesn't? That's where the confusion was. 4.5-3 doesn't have X support. 4.5-4 and later should. If you're using stable, you'll be using 4.5-3, hence the lack of X support. If you do an ldd on the vim binary in 4.5-4 or later, it _should_ come up with a dynamic link to libX11, libXaw, etc., etc. If it doesn't, it's a bug in the package.
Re: VIM Editor
William Chow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] : Weird, I did an ldd on vim. The only two libs it needs are ncurses and : libc. Are there two different versions of vim in the debian packaging : system, one with and one without X support? There shouldn't be. Which version of vim do you have installed? When I changed the compilation procedure to configure vim with X support, I created two versions - one for 1.2 (which, at the time, was slated to use 3.1.2), and one for unstable (shortly to become 1.3). The reason for this seemingly crazy process is that my video card - a W32p revision A, VESA local bus - didn't work with 3.1.2; I'd long ago given up on it, and was using the betas. As a result, I wasn't certain vim would work properly with 3.1.2 if it were linked with the R6.1 libraries (3.1.2 was X11R6; 3.1.2D and later, R6.1; 3.2A and later are R6.3.) Stuart (onetime vim maintainer, who occasionally skims linux.debian.user :) -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC1925.
Re: Some thoughts for Debian.
Matt Kracht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have no idea whose idea it was split every library into two (or more!) packages, either. As a developer, this can, I suppose, be a little annoying. The whole point is that if you, a _user_ (note the emphasis) require a shared library to _run_ a program, you shouldn't be obliged to obtain all the static linking libraries, header files, etc. to go with it. Those things would only be needed by those compiling programs. libelf0, which I maintain, is a fairly small package. libelf0-dev has an 800 kilobyte .a file (plus headers, and a few other things). Do you really think users, who _only want to run software_, would thank me if I put that file, which would never be used, into libelf0? And that's not an isolated example, either... you can find similar cases with libc. all required. Then I find out that the guy who compiled it did something weird. Lynx 2.6 doesn't compile with it. So, I go to the S-LANG home page and get the real source and compile it. Lynx compiles fine. Why was I recompiling Lynx? Because the guy who compiled that screwed it up! My God, I've recompiled half the Debian packages, it seems like. So report bugs. It takes only a little amount of your time compared to recompiling, and the result is a set of packages better suited to your, and hopefully other people's, needs. What's more, upgrading programs compiled as a Debian package is a helluva lot more easy than upgrading programs installed by hand - there were programs on my old Slackware system that had long since been gone, but still had configuration files, and other things like that, floating around in odd spots - solely because I didn't know where to look for them. Debian, and RedHat, take the pain out of upgrades in that respect.. and Debian's package management system is more advanced in severals respect than RedHat's. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not in the correct mindset for Debian. I like to run the latest stuff. Debian offers, it seems, only the oldest, most stable software. Hardly the oldest.. but yes, one of the aims is stability. Running the latest stuff, as somebody else pointed out, is a recipe for disaster on a system being run as part of an ISP, or a commercial situation. In those situations, you _WANT_ the most stable software you can _GET_ - if you're constantly rebooting, expensive hardware is not being utilised effectively. I just don't see why anyone would run Linux and not want to compile software, be on bleeding edge, and actually administer a UNIX system... I feel like I'm running Windows 95. Compile software: it takes time. Have you tried compiling X? I have; in fact, I am under a certain _obligation_ to do so, since I'm supposed to test as many alpha servers as I can for the XFree86 project. If a make World gets done overnight, it's a pretty good job - admittedly on a relatively slow system, but it illustrates the point. Keith Lewis, a sysadmin here at Monash, used to compile every program installed on the mainstream machines. This took up his _entire_ morning, as he transferred sources for requested software, compiled it, and installed it. Now he accepts compiled binaries, making notes of who compiled what - it takes up much less time when he could be fixing more serious problems. Be on bleeding edge: if the bleeding edge falls over, what do you do? At home, on a hobby machine, it's not a problem; in a workplace environment, it is _totally_ unacceptable. (workplace environment, in this case, also refers to home computers being used for work.) If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT. (that's the philosophy for work computers, of course :) Administer a UNIX system: yes, but the above two mentioned things are not related to this argument. Unconfigurable software with horrid defaults, plain bad planning, changing industry standards without notice, etc. Unconfigurable? Get your hands dirty, and look under /etc sometime. Changing industry standards? Enlighten me - how does Debian do this? (No sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested.) Bad planning? On occasion, guilty as charged; feel free to volunteer to help us with this. That's where Debian comes from: the work of volunteers. Yes, at times, our act is not brilliant; but from what I've seen, Debian has managed to get a lot more right than wrong. Off topic, but slightly related: I'd like, at this point, to sing the praises of Bruce Perens. He's done a magnificent job, against a lot of flack from several developers (when they disagreed, and those who agreed with him kept quiet :). My hat goes off to him. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A proposal to improve dselect
[Fun. The spamfilter rejected my email. Musta forgot to register my silas account.] : To the other newbies out there, this mailing list somehow ends up : archived as a newsgroup. I've found lots of help by searching : problems at : http://www.dejanews.com/ There's a mail-to-news gateway, I think at yggdrasil(sp?). It's supposed to be moderated, and the moderator's address is - you guessed it - [EMAIL PROTECTED] That way, posts to the newsgroup (should) reach the mailing list, and vice versa. Just FWIW. The newsgroup is linux.debian.user. -- Okay, I've created my \etc directory. What files do I put into it? Lusers. Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VIM questions
Chris R. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Will there ever be a debian version of Vim which supports -g under X, or will I have to compile my own? 4.5-4, in bo. (This has been the cause of a couple of bug reports from people who believe there should be a separate version without X support. This ain't policy, folks. Sorry...) 2) How can I get my keys mapped properly? I want del to delete the character under the cursor, bs to delete the previous character, home to move to the beginning of the line, end to move to the end of the line, pg up to go up a page, pg dn to go down a page, etc... where do I start? I would like behavior both in console mode and in an xterm. I'm not too sure about this. I'm such a diehard vi user, I use the standard vi commands for these :-) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X is painful
Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Early wrote: Creating a user interface under X that is as good as NextStep is just a matter of getting every X application author to agree to adhere to the same policy. I wish you luck. I agree that this is very diffcult. But the Debian developers should do their best at getting Debian programs to cooperate. This isn't trivial. As Stephen said, X provides the basics for graphical development; it doesn't provide any fancy schmancy stuff like menus, push buttons, etc. That's done by such things as Motif, xforms, Qt, etc. Converting an X program from one such library to another is a less than easy task.. so any attempt to produce a uniform interface is going to fail. Simple as that. It's a nice idea, but... :-) -- This message was distributed manually by [EMAIL PROTECTED] after the list initially failed to distribute it.
Re: [comp.os.linux.announce] Clarification - Linux-FT, The Road
Bruce Perens wrote: [...] (: NIST decided to make the suite available without charge. The Debian (: Project most heartily applauds this decision. In fact we most heartily (: jump up and down with glee and cheer unabashedly. I'd probably go a bit further than that :-) (: My plan is to package the POSIX.1 test suite so that any user can run it (: and independently verify the POSIX.1 compliance of his/her system. (: For this, we need volunteers. So far, Klee Dienes [EMAIL PROTECTED] has (: said he'd look at it but hasn't made a committment. We need more people (: to look at and work on this. Please volunteer if you can. I'm in pretty much the same situation - I haven't got that much time (one assignment down, four to go) - but if/when I get time, (more likely than not, in December :-( ), if it hasn't already been packaged, I'll do it. Should be interesting. (*note well the caveat about time* - if you've got the time, and I haven't explicitely stated to debian-devel that I've done it, go right ahead.) -- All emails sent from known sites supporting spams will be ditched upon arrival. This includes, but is not limited to, interramp.com, cyberpromo.com, and moneyworld.com. Copies of the .procmailrc used for this are available upon request. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extended memory?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] bhaskar wrote: : I see that the Debian installation instructions contain the following. : Extended vs. Expanded Memory : If your system provides both extended and expanded memory, set it : so that there is as much extended and as little expanded memory : as possible. Linux requires extended memory and can not use : expanded memory. : : I'm confused, since unices make no such distinctions between memory. : This is under the BIOS settings instructions, so presumably there : were systems where the BIOS somehow configured the memory to behave : like extended memory? Indeed. As an example, at home I have a 486, and two 286 class systems. One of the 286 machines is based around the NEAT chipset, which allows you to do all sorts of neat stuff (pun not intended, but I'll keep it there anyway. :-) It has 4MB of RAM, 2MB of which is earmarked for EMS; the rest is the base/extended. Changing the size of the EMS block is trivial - just modify the CMOS settings, and reboot. Linux switches into 386 enhanced mode, which treats memory as one big continuous block. _However_, this only works if the memory is set up to work as extended memory. EMS was designed to get around the 640KB limit on 8086, 8088, and 80186-based systems. (yes, there _was_ an 80186 chip; it just wasn't widely used in the same way that the 8088, 80286, 80386, and 80486 were.) [yes, I know, it's the i486...sheesh. I was on a roll there. :-) ] Basically, the simple answer is that you can see, and use, extended memory in 386 enhanced mode, which Linux runs under. You cannot see expanded memory, making it useless under Linux. -- Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer. http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements.
Re: Netiquette of requesting package updates
Brian C. White wrote: : I spend close : to 50% of my Linux time using two programs, an editor and : a WWW browser, and in both cases the current Debian version : is several months out of date. [...] : I was being purposely vague because I didn't want to single anyone : out, but no, they're both popular text-only programs. One of : them is behind by a minor version, the other by a major + 2 minors. If you're referring to vim in the latter case, I chose not to package vim 4.2 (leaving the current version at 3.0) because it has the restriction that, if it's put on a CD-ROM, you must send the author a copy of the CD. I have contacted the author, and he has indicated that 4.3 will not have this restriction; when it comes out, I'll package it up. Just to let you know that I'm well aware of the situation. :-) If I get enough hate mail, I'll package it up and stick it in non-free, but I don't particularly want to do this. Oh, and in case earlier versions didn't have this restriction - I only recently took over maintaining vim. :-) -- Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer. http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements.
linux.debian.user newsgroup (Re: printing and .profile problems)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Susan Kleinmann wrote: : : Hi Chris -- : : You said: : I tried to post to the linux.debian.user newsgroup without success. : There isn't any newsgroup -- just this mailing list. Actually, linux.debian.user exists, but it appears to be a gateway from the mailing list to USENET - it doesn't seem to work the other way around. :-( I can read from it, but it doesn't seem to reach the mailing list if I post to it. Just FWIW. (and, again FWIW, I'm mailing this to debian-user, not posting it.) -- Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer. http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements.
Re: XServer for ET4000/W32p hangs!!
Syrus Nemat-Nasser wrote: : On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Mark Phillips wrote: : : Hi, : : I have a friend who I am trying to help install debian 1.1. He has an : ET4000/W32p graphics card. I installed the appropriate server, went [snipped] : : There are many problems with the ET4000/W32 cards. You can try a beta : version from XFREE or try my solution--replace the card with one that : works under the present XFREE86 distribution. To clarify the situation: 3.1.2 had a few problems that caused them to not work with ET4000/W32 revisions A or B. (I have a revision A at home, FWIW.) These bugs have been fixed, and 3.1.2E works fine on my home system. I would suggest that you install 3.1.2, but not configure it, from the debian packages; move it to another directory (or tar it up), and replace it with the 3.1.2E distribution from ftp.xfree86.org or its mirrors. This should rectify the situation. -- Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer. http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements.
