On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:28:53PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> This appears to be a broken tar issue surounding hardlinks and Christos
> has backed it out. So perhaps update and rebuild and try again.
Yes - the reason pax worked is that it didn't use libarchive. On a
"broken" box:
# ldd
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> This appears to be a broken tar issue surounding hardlinks and Christos
> has backed it out. So perhaps update and rebuild and try again.
I vaguely remember similar discussion sometimes ago.
>
> I can see why you refer to 9.33.37 as a
This appears to be a broken tar issue surounding hardlinks and Christos
has backed it out. So perhaps update and rebuild and try again.
I can see why you refer to 9.33.37 as a version of NetBSD, but really it
is not a name for a specific version. That last number is increased
when there is an
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Patrick Welche wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 03:20:46PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> > To complete the analysis, I tried to upgrade a 9.99.36 system to
> > 9.99.37 by booting off the ISO file I previously used for the clean
> > installation described above.
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Patrick Welche wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 03:20:46PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> > To complete the analysis, I tried to upgrade a 9.99.36 system to
> > 9.99.37 by booting off the ISO file I previously used for the clean
> > installation described above.
>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 03:20:46PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> To complete the analysis, I tried to upgrade a 9.99.36 system to
> 9.99.37 by booting off the ISO file I previously used for the clean
> installation described above.
>
> It failed in a similar was as with sysupgrade :
>
> ls -l
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:20, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 13:41, Patrick Welche wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:28:15PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> > > Clean installation from the same ISO file is fine, so it probably was
> > > sysupgrade failure induced by the
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 13:41, Patrick Welche wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:28:15PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> > Clean installation from the same ISO file is fine, so it probably was
> > sysupgrade failure induced by the different tar.
>
> You did quite some detective work! (Yes, I
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:45, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
>
> I was able to downgrade to 9.99.36 using sysupgrade after linking
> /usr/bin/tar to /usr/pkg/bin/bsdtar, as /bin/tar /bin/pax and
> /bin/cpio were also of length 0 on my 9.99.37...
>
> Unintended consequences.
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at
I was able to downgrade to 9.99.36 using sysupgrade after linking
/usr/bin/tar to /usr/pkg/bin/bsdtar, as /bin/tar /bin/pax and
/bin/cpio were also of length 0 on my 9.99.37...
Unintended consequences.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:29, Patrick
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:29, Patrick Welche wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:22:26PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> > There is no point testing. ktruss gcc on 9.99.37 exits after onlly 130
> > lines...
>
> FWIW, an update build.sh from yesterday, so 9.99.37/amd64, works for me:
> $ ls -l
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:22:26PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> There is no point testing. ktruss gcc on 9.99.37 exits after onlly 130
> lines...
FWIW, an update build.sh from yesterday, so 9.99.37/amd64, works for me:
$ ls -l `which gcc`
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 1045384 Jan 13 17:43
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:22, Rares Aioanei wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, I found that at least /usr/bin/gcc and /sbin/reboot are
> empty files. I upgraded to 9.99.37 via "sysupgrade auto $URL".
I do essentially the same, but with self-built versions. In my case
/sbin/reboot appears OK, but /usr/bin/lex
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:18, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Rares Aioanei wrote:
> >
> > Unsure if related or not, but I updated pkgsrc, then ran
> > "pkg_rolling-replace -u" . Suddenly gcc3 became a dependency to
> > py-setuptools, and gcc3 needs binutils, which fails
Meanwhile, I found that at least /usr/bin/gcc and /sbin/reboot are
empty files. I upgraded to 9.99.37 via "sysupgrade auto $URL".
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:18 PM Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Rares Aioanei wrote:
> >
> > Unsure if related or not, but I updated pkgsrc,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Rares Aioanei wrote:
>
> Unsure if related or not, but I updated pkgsrc, then ran
> "pkg_rolling-replace -u" . Suddenly gcc3 became a dependency to
> py-setuptools, and gcc3 needs binutils, which fails at the configure
> step with "C compiler cannot create
Unsure if related or not, but I updated pkgsrc, then ran
"pkg_rolling-replace -u" . Suddenly gcc3 became a dependency to
py-setuptools, and gcc3 needs binutils, which fails at the configure
step with "C compiler cannot create executables". I switched to
another terminal, wrote a short hello world
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:52, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I bumped up my development machine to 9.99.37; after that I usually
> rebuild pkgtools/osabi and all that depend on it; this usually does
> not cause problems (with the exception of lsof, which I had installed
> some times ago and
18 matches
Mail list logo
